NationStates Jolt Archive

I don’t like the USA because of it’s arrogant attitude, and I can’t believe that the US involvement in the affairs of other countries is purely humanitarian. Revenge for the 9/11 events is not the same as doing what is best for the people of ‘whatever country’.

Americans on the other hand I only hate the half of the ones I have met (haven’t met many yet) – but must say that is higher than other nationalities I have met and disliked, except perhaps the Italians (the ones I’ve met have been overly arrogant and loud).
Hardly any nation's motives are completely "pure," but the US has performed an incredible number of humanitarian deeds with very little, if any thought of return. I suspect, although I have no way of knowing, that the original objectives for the Afghanistan and Iranian interventions were for either revenge or some other, less noble reasons and changed only as the opportunity arose to bring some good out of the resulting mess. The spreading trend toward greater democratization throughout the Middle East is probably serendipitous, but should be welcomed as a massive plus!

I love my country, I just despise most of the idiots running it.

I love my country, I just despise most of the idiots running it.
Tsk! Did you vote???

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?


First off I am American. Get it right: decimated means 1/10 died try 1/2. the French were obliterated by a snowstorm because their oh-so-great-god Napolean failed to realize that if you leave France in late summer it tends to become winter after a couple hundred miles and a few months later.

Also I agree with all your reasons as to why people like attacking America.....shame.......i guess jealousy wears out after a while

First off I am American. Get it right: decimated means 1/10 died try 1/2. the French were obliterated by a snowstorm because their oh-so-great-god Napolean failed to realize that if you leave France in late summer it tends to become winter after a couple hundred miles and a few months later.

Also I agree with all your reasons as to why people like attacking America.....shame.......i guess jealousy wears out after a while
can you name a military leader who was not russian, and did not underestimate the visciousness of the russian winter?

I find it funny that so many Europeans Hate America, a country that is made up of mostly European immigrants. ( I am Native American, and have always been here.) I think that all the Europeans that like America have already moved here.

I Feel this way, if you don't like America, don't buy it, don't visit it, and sure as Hell don't move here! (theres already too many damned immigrants here already)

I am as everyone here would say an "Arrogant American" and damn proud. But I am not ignorant, and I refuse to think that Americans as a whole are ignorant, even though many people do stupid things.(ie: murder babies, but that is a different subject entirely) (God must love stupid people, he made so many)

As an "Arrogant American" I couldn't care less about what anyone has to say bad about it (especially europeans, since they all seem to Hate America) I would much rather be a Knuckle-dragging, chest-beating, red-blooded American, than a Tight-ass, pussy, European, with my nose up so high in the air, it's a damned wonder I don't drown in the Rain. :p


P.S. Americans like Getstuffed, we are more than happy to be rid of you.

The American empire does not really bother me, what scares me is the infantile stimulus response that passes for thinking in the White House. France, Germany and England were listed as having 'empire envy', maybe so, but at least those empires had statesmen leading them. Introspection plays no part in American political thought, just armed response. There should be grief for 9/11, people died. But what should be considered is what the world saw, an overreaction to a few deaths. Consider the human costs of those previous empires, France bled, Germany bled (twice), and England bled out during WWI. Perhaps what is being confused for 'empire envy' in Europe is simply a recognition that empires pay and America did not respond after 9/11 like an empire, instead like a child thrashing out at whatever was closest.

:gundge: America country full of obesse people,trained assasins well basicly has all the seven sins described in the holly bible but 10 times worst

I find it funny that so many Europeans Hate America, a country that is made up of mostly European immigrants. ( I am Native American, and have always been here.) I think that all the Europeans that like America have already moved here.

I Feel this way, if you don't like America, don't buy it, don't visit it, and sure as Hell don't move here! (theres already too many damned immigrants here already)

I am as everyone here would say an "Arrogant American" and damn proud. But I am not ignorant, and I refuse to think that Americans as a whole are ignorant, even though many people do stupid things.(ie: murder babies, but that is a different subject entirely) (God must love stupid people, he made so many)

As an "Arrogant American" I couldn't care less about what anyone has to say bad about it (especially europeans, since they all seem to Hate America) I would much rather be a Knuckle-dragging, chest-beating, red-blooded American, than a Tight-ass, pussy, European, with my nose up so high in the air, it's a damned wonder I don't drown in the Rain. :p


P.S. Americans like Getstuffed, we are more than happy to be rid of you.

Thanks for making it really easy to mock your 'nationalism' I would take a dozen Frenchmen in a fight before a native, at least the Frenchmen could hold thier booze.

Holly Hunter has a bible? Sweet.

And is there really a morbidly obese, wel ltrained assassin? Seems that those are mutually exclusive.

This thread has devolved into a rediculous pissing contest...
A battle of wits being fought unarmed.

First day at the forum?

Thanks for making it really easy to mock your 'nationalism' I would take a dozen Frenchmen in a fight before a native, at least the Frenchmen could hold thier booze.

wow, even i think that one was uncalled for. if you're going to stoop that low, sit this one out.

they deserve everything they get ,their heads are so farr up theyr oun asses they cant see the light :D

Thanks for making it really easy to mock your 'nationalism' I would take a dozen Frenchmen in a fight before a native, at least the Frenchmen could hold thier booze.

Yeah, they "hold their booze" in one hand, as they hold a White Flag in the other...

At least natives are willing to FIGHT!

Regards,
Gaar

Somebody help me out with this. I don't have an Idiot-to-English dictionary.

they deserve everything they get ,their heads are so farr up theyr oun asses they cant see the light :D


Somebody help me out with this. I don't have an Idiot-to-English dictionary.

Somebody help me out with this. I don't have an Idiot-to-English dictionary.

then this is a bad place to be. :rolleyes:

:p Yeah, they "hold their booze" in one hand, as they hold a White Flag in the other...

At least natives are willing to FIGHT!

Regards,
Gaar

LOL :p and if he'd take 'twelve frenchman over a native,' isn't he admitting that the natives fight at least 11 times better than the french?
*as duffman* OH Yeah!

Was it Paton that said, "I'd rather have a German legion in front of me than a French legion behind me"?

:p

LOL :p and if he'd take 'twelve frenchman over a native,' isn't he admitting that the natives fight at least 11 times better than the french?
*as duffman* OH Yeah!
Even if that's not what he was going for, I think that's the point that needs to be made.

Dude, opinion is not a real defense. Was the mere fact that it is your opinion your motivation to post? I don't think so. People start threads for the express purpose of illiciting a response. When the response you intend to illicit is a flame, posting your "opinion" is flamebait.

If I were to start a thread saying "XXXXX is teh stupid", it would be "one man's opinion" (using man as a gender-neutral term), but it would still be flamebait.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is apparent that Eutrusca is not truly interested in trying to understand why there is as he suggests an anti-American sentiment in the posts. He is sitting back and taking pot shots at those that identify with this anti-Americanism.

This whole thread is BS, and if he had any courage, he would at least try to answer the honest posters that suggested that this thread is based on false premises. He has no interest in building bridges. He is waiting for the traffic to get jammed up on the bridge before blowing the foundation into little pieces.

After going through all the posts on this thread, I can conclude that the premise for this thread is totally dishonest, and self serving.

Eutrusca and Zooke are setting up an "advice" thread, and I wonder what kind of advice he would be able to give in regards to "honesty"? :eek:

The American empire does not really bother me, what scares me is the infantile stimulus response that passes for thinking in the White House. France, Germany and England were listed as having 'empire envy', maybe so, but at least those empires had statesmen leading them. Introspection plays no part in American political thought, just armed response. There should be grief for 9/11, people died. But what should be considered is what the world saw, an overreaction to a few deaths. Consider the human costs of those previous empires, France bled, Germany bled (twice), and England bled out during WWI. Perhaps what is being confused for 'empire envy' in Europe is simply a recognition that empires pay and America did not respond after 9/11 like an empire, instead like a child thrashing out at whatever was closest.

1.) Pointless ad hominem against leaders in a high-pressure situation.

2.) Admittedly, 3000 deaths is not that big in the grand scale of hundreds of thousands of people being born and dying every day. But if we don't recognize the tragedy of the 3000 lost in the WTC, then why recognize tragedy in the 10000 lost in the earthquake... or the 100000 lost in the tsunami... or the 1 million lost in a nuclear attack? No, when someone kills 3000 people there must be an accounting.

I don't personally believe in war for any reason, as war only leads to more people dying. But I don't condemn the leadership for their actions because we live in an imperfect world.

3.) Oh really, what is the standard for how an "empire" should respond? It sounds to me like you are trying to play the "juvenile" card. Since not everything went exactly the way you expected/wanted it to, you can self-righteously say then that the hundreds of thousands of intelligent people in the leadership of the US must somehow collectively be as ignorant and dangerous as a little child. Give me a break.

Yeah right, it has nothing to do with the corrupt "Oil for Food Program" and the TONS of Money they were making off of it, right?!?!
I noticed that you would imply that only the French made monies off of the
"Oil for Food Program", when in reality it was numerous countries, and most recently a US company (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/0719scandals.htm):

While Saddam Hussein's regime may have found ways to capture funds that were meant to serve the Iraqi population, abuse of oil monies seems to be occurring on a similar scale in US-occupied Iraq. For example, Halliburton, under its contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers, provided fuel to the military at $1.59 per gallon, while the Iraqi national oil company could buy the fuel at 98 cents per gallon. The difference came to $300 million, and the profits were funneled into the coffers of an American corporation, rather than pumped into the Iraqi economy.

Watch out for the stone throwing?


And let's not forget that our involvement in Viet Nam was because we were "helping" the French.
Ummmm the French were long gone when the US got involved in Vietnam.

http://www.vietnampix.com/intro2.htm


And the Oil argument is getting a bit tiresome, I wish someone would explain how spending in excess of $200 Billion in fighting this War has done more to secure some Oil for us than if we had used the money to just ACTUALLY BUY OIL?!?!
Well the oil argument is anything but tiresome and I should expect that you will hear more and more about it as time goes by.

http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/politics.html

How does a thread about anti-Americanism turn into a bash the French thread, and how does it enable the building of bridges?

How does a thread about anti-Americanism turn into a bash the French thread, and how does it enable the building of bridges?

I see, so as long as we are only bashing American's there is room to build "Bridges", but when the French are included in the bashing it somehow precludes "Bridges" at that point?!?!

And when did I ever say that the French were the only ones making any money from the "Oil for Food Program"? Nice of you to say it for me so you could say I was wrong!?!?

And perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out how what Halliburton did had ANYTHING to do with the "Oil for Food Program" in the UN?

And as for YOUR Oil Argument, I believe you are greatly exaggerating the demise of Oil in America...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

And yes, I was wrong about Viet Nam, and I can admit it...

Regards,
Gaar

Ummmm the French were long gone when the US got involved in Vietnam.

Actually the US supported France in its efforts to recover its colonies there. Vietnam asked us to help them in their independence movement, and we refused. We wanted France to know we were an ally.

So Vietnam went looking elsewhere for allies. It found them in Russia. If we had helped them from the begining France would have been mad at us, but the Vietnam war might have been averted.

I'm only going to say this once; anyone who wants to comment/reply back can either (a) telegraph me or (b) come to my website (http://www.ketira.net/) and and either email me or post on my MB. All I ask is that you quote what I've said before responding as I may have forggotten it by the time you get back to me. (The "about me" portion of my website explains why this is.)
============================================================
Y'know, I think everyone here has forgotten a few facts:

1) The Government does not always equal The People under that Government. I did not vote for Bush; I wanted him OUT of the White House. (I am a registered Independent and would have voted for ex-Senator Bob Graham had he not taken himself out of the Democratic Race for President. Ex-Senator Graham once was Florida's governor, and a good one at that.) Do you think that what the current Adminstration does has the people's support? Hardly. Just go over to www.thepetitionsite.com and see just how many petitions are about things that the Administration wants to do. For example: Pres. Bush (the current one) wants to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge - something that the majority of citizens are against. If there's an issue or policy that I disagree with (like the example I've just mentioned), I have a way to express that to my lawmakers. If there are enough people who feel the same way, then something does get changed or stopped. Can you say the same of your own country?

(2) Do y'all realize that there have been many inventions from my country that have changed your lives? I can think of a few: Television.... the Internet (which evolved into the World Wide Web)..... telephones.... electricity..... medicines..... there are others. Which country found a way to not only orbit the moon, but land on its surface? Which country found a way to go out into space, come home again, and repeat the process with the same equipment? Does anyone here give a damn about the International Space Station, which may be the place to find cures for many diseases? *shakes head* Everyone is focusing on the negative things that my country has done, and not the positive. I didn't like it when Pres. Bush walked out of the Kyoto Accords; I'm sure I'm not the only one in my Country who disagrees with him. In fact, a growing number of people want to Impeach him; go see www.impeachbush.org .

3) I realize that the USA hasn't been here that long; we've been around only.... what, 228 years compared to some other countries represented here? Yet, who has done so much in so short a time? Yes, there are bad things we have done, both in today's world and in our History. Y'all can say the exact same thing about your country as well.

My point? Don't automatically hate me because I'm American. You might find that I'm not a bad person after all.

--snip--
i have only one question for you. why in heavens name was that purple?

Actually the US supported France in its efforts to recover its colonies there. Vietnam asked us to help them in their independence movement, and we refused. We wanted France to know we were an ally.

So Vietnam went looking elsewhere for allies. It found them in Russia. If we had helped them from the begining France would have been mad at us, but the Vietnam war might have been averted.
The interesting thing that the Americans -- and the French, for that matter -- seemed to have forgotten is that the British occupied Vietnam for a short time at the end of World War II in the short interlude between the Japanese and French occupations. The British were simply a holding power while the US and the French decided what was to become of Vietnam. Needless to say, the British were more than happy to leave.

The French seem to be getting an indecent amount of stick on these threads as have all Americans, but that shouldn't excuse some of the remarkably short-sighted policies of the present administration, particularly what has been termed the 'empire lite' formula in Iraq. The present administration not only ignored the liberals but also the army when it said it would like require a much larger force to police an occupied Iraq once it was inevitably taken. It is the arrogance of an administration that most of us who complain about the United States can't abide the same way many of us aren't able to abide -- in good conscience if at all -- what the French do in West Africa. When some of us see the Americans sniping at the French, all we see are two arrogant people arguing bitterly, both of whom ignoring what the real problems between and within their nations.

Is the United States a great nation doing great things, or is it losing its grip on the world, so carefully fostered by its corporations through the cheaper and eventually more beneficial economic imperialism, by unnecessarily expending its military force and that force's morale? Only time will tell...

I have sat here and looked at quite a few messages that I find very interesting. Overall, though, I have to say that there are quite a few themes that ring true. Most of them make me want to bang my head against a wall, so I will use that smiley to highlight my points as I go along...

:headbang: American governments and military actions cannot be considered corrupt, yet most countries that accuse America of this most likely have histories of corrupt governments and military actions. In other words, not calling spades "spades" to justify their beliefs of anti-Americanism.

:headbang: People point their fingers and talk about how we're going into Iraq for our oil interests, yet we have documented proof that a quite a few of the UN Member nations that opposed the Iraqi war were getting "under the UN table" deals with Iraq for various oil favors. Some other people, while not having very many scandals in government at least have a prince marrying a mistress after the very questionable death of his wife...

:headbang: They point their fingers and talk about unjustified occupations. The really funny thing is, we have at least declared a war on terror...some of the countries pointing fingers walked into countries because they felt like it.

:headbang: A situation like the war in Iraq has happened before, and the time before it was completely okay. Remember Bosnia? President Clinton scared the brown pudding out of that corrupt leader with military action and everyone applauded. Mr. Hussein did things far worse, and yet, for some reason, people can't admit that the world is better off without him in power.

:headbang: They say that the 3,000 people that were turned to dust by exploding airplane fuel aren't worth all of the military casualties that we have in this war. Let me say this and say this clearly: one death by terrorism is one death too many. Do we mourn those that lose their lives in Iraq? Of course we do. On both sides even. Death is a sad thing. People will tell me to move on. I'm sorry. I can't accept that. You will never understand until you have someone make your fellow countrymen and countrywomen a target and kill them with an act as vile as hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. Until that happens to you, I will consider your rambling absolutely nothing more that "Monday Morning Armchair Quarterbacking."

:headbang: Where did people get the idea that war is a glorious game of tag or hide and seek? People die in military conflict. If you look at me and tell me that the troops in our military "don't know what they were getting into" then you are mistaken. When they are training to clean a gun, do you think their drill sargeant tells them they are doing it so they can "hang it in a pretty display case, but never use it!"? The fact of the matter is, they're told that they can go to war from the beginning.

:headbang: What is particularly annoying about all of this is that if something like 9/11 were to happen to you (and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy) there would be the same outrage and the same fervency to wipe out terrorism that we have in this world. Oh, and, another thing...don't tell me that Iraq was never a threat...terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. Plan and simple.

I don't usually reply to any replies after a post like this, because usually what follows is a vicious circle of stupidity that usually cycles around people telling me that I am wrong "because they said so." I don't want to waste my time. Oh...and let me just recap...unless you've been the victim of an act of terrorism on the level of 9/11...you really have no credibility to begin with...

now your simply becoming fickle with terminology which is determined by a difference of cultures.. All of western cultures recognize the United STates as AMerica, and her citizens as Americans... it is only those south Americans which try to no avalie to propgate the idea that they are somehow incorporated with the term "American".

Its just like south americans trying to link North America with South America as one contient.. (a event which is unquie and recognized ONLY by south america.. strangly enough)

ANd of course.. people hating/or arguing against america will not recognize or (if they do recognize) admit Envy is the cause of their hatrid.. but nationalism is often the cause of strong feelings

And the USA resides on North America. Canadians do too. So why are the people of the USA more "American" than Canadians. Or Mexicans, or Costaricans? It IS very arrogant of the USA to consider themselves the only Americans when they are not the only country in the damn continent.

Puerto Rico can't decide whether it wants to continue as a protectorate or become a State.


You talk as if it were a question of deciding what color of pants you are going to wear for the day. Such desicion is critical and can have severe repercussions for our country. Its obvious why we cant "decide" as easily as you make it sound.

Besides, it is also about deciding if we will be come independent. You missed that part.

And the USA resides on North America. Canadians do too. So why are the people of the USA more "American" than Canadians. Or Mexicans, or Costaricans? It IS very arrogant of the USA to consider themselves the only Americans when they are not the only country in the damn continent.

The formal title is the United State of America. So, maybe it's because the word America is in the title.

I have sat here and looked at quite a few messages that I find very interesting. Overall, though, I have to say that there are quite a few themes that ring true. Most of them make me want to bang my head against a wall, so I will use that smiley to highlight my points as I go along...

:headbang: American governments and military actions cannot be considered corrupt, yet most countries that accuse America of this most likely have histories of corrupt governments and military actions. In other words, not calling spades "spades" to justify their beliefs of anti-Americanism.

:headbang: People point their fingers and talk about how we're going into Iraq for our oil interests, yet we have documented proof that a quite a few of the UN Member nations that opposed the Iraqi war were getting "under the UN table" deals with Iraq for various oil favors. Some other people, while not having very many scandals in government at least have a prince marrying a mistress after the very questionable death of his wife...

:headbang: They point their fingers and talk about unjustified occupations. The really funny thing is, we have at least declared a war on terror...some of the countries pointing fingers walked into countries because they felt like it.

:headbang: A situation like the war in Iraq has happened before, and the time before it was completely okay. Remember Bosnia? President Clinton scared the brown pudding out of that corrupt leader with military action and everyone applauded. Mr. Hussein did things far worse, and yet, for some reason, people can't admit that the world is better off without him in power.

:headbang: They say that the 3,000 people that were turned to dust by exploding airplane fuel aren't worth all of the military casualties that we have in this war. Let me say this and say this clearly: one death by terrorism is one death too many. Do we mourn those that lose their lives in Iraq? Of course we do. On both sides even. Death is a sad thing. People will tell me to move on. I'm sorry. I can't accept that. You will never understand until you have someone make your fellow countrymen and countrywomen a target and kill them with an act as vile as hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. Until that happens to you, I will consider your rambling absolutely nothing more that "Monday Morning Armchair Quarterbacking."

:headbang: Where did people get the idea that war is a glorious game of tag or hide and seek? People die in military conflict. If you look at me and tell me that the troops in our military "don't know what they were getting into" then you are mistaken. When they are training to clean a gun, do you think their drill sargeant tells them they are doing it so they can "hang it in a pretty display case, but never use it!"? The fact of the matter is, they're told that they can go to war from the beginning.

:headbang: What is particularly annoying about all of this is that if something like 9/11 were to happen to you (and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy) there would be the same outrage and the same fervency to wipe out terrorism that we have in this world. Oh, and, another thing...don't tell me that Iraq was never a threat...terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. Plan and simple.

I don't usually reply to any replies after a post like this, because usually what follows is a vicious circle of stupidity that usually cycles around people telling me that I am wrong "because they said so." I don't want to waste my time. Oh...and let me just recap...unless you've been the victim of an act of terrorism on the level of 9/11...you really have no credibility to begin with...

I would make counterarguments but I'm a bit debated out right now. I will make one simple observation however. you do the thing you accuse us of; that is, you discount our credibility without hearing our arguments.

To Americans : DAMN IT YOU DONT OWN THE WORLD, SO DONT TRY TO RUN IT !

I don't usually reply to any replies after a post like this, because usually what follows is a vicious circle of stupidity that usually cycles around people telling me that I am wrong "because they said so." I don't want to waste my time. Oh...and let me just recap...unless you've been the victim of an act of terrorism on the level of 9/11...you really have no credibility to begin with...
You say that you don't usually reply to your own posts, yet this according to what I see is your FIRST post. :eek:

If you have posted here before under another nation, why would you feel it necessary to get a "puppet" nation to do your dirty work? I refer you to your credibility "clause" below.

About the credibility thing? Have you personally been a victim of a terrorist act on the level of 9/11? I also don't appreciate you suggesting that my credibility would hinge on your requirements.

Ahhh nothing worse than a "vicious circle of stupidity"? Remember, if that happens, that you are the one that kicked it off.

Also, I notice you parroting basically what Eutrusca stated in his opening post..."People will tell me to move on." in regards to 9/11, well the funny thing about that is that he was sharing his "personal" experiences, and yet you have the same experience? That is interesting because I for one have not seen that posted here EVER.

:headbang: What is particularly annoying about all of this is that if something like 9/11 were to happen to you (and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy) there would be the same outrage and the same fervency to wipe out terrorism that we have in this world. Oh, and, another thing...don't tell me that Iraq was never a threat...terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. Plan and simple.



Uhhh......India has had similar experiences, but America goes on to support Pakistan, knowing full well that there are terrorist camps on the the southern and western border of Pakistan.....

and we dont go around destroying countries smaller then us just on a doubt :)

I'm only going to say this once; anyone who wants to comment/reply back can either (a) telegraph me or (b) come to my website (http://www.ketira.net/) and and either email me or post on my MB. All I ask is that you quote what I've said before responding as I may have forggotten it by the time you get back to me. (The "about me" portion of my website explains why this is.)
============================================================
Y'know, I think everyone here has forgotten a few facts:

1) The Government does not always equal The People under that Government. I did not vote for Bush; I wanted him OUT of the White House. (I am a registered Independent and would have voted for ex-Senator Bob Graham had he not taken himself out of the Democratic Race for President. Ex-Senator Graham once was Florida's governor, and a good one at that.) Do you think that what the current Adminstration does has the people's support? Hardly. Just go over to www.thepetitionsite.com and see just how many petitions are about things that the Administration wants to do. For example: Pres. Bush (the current one) wants to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge - something that the majority of citizens are against. If there's an issue or policy that I disagree with (like the example I've just mentioned), I have a way to express that to my lawmakers. If there are enough people who feel the same way, then something does get changed or stopped. Can you say the same of your own country?

(2) Do y'all realize that there have been many inventions from my country that have changed your lives? I can think of a few: Television.... the Internet (which evolved into the World Wide Web)..... telephones.... electricity..... medicines..... there are others. Which country found a way to not only orbit the moon, but land on its surface? Which country found a way to go out into space, come home again, and repeat the process with the same equipment? Does anyone here give a damn about the International Space Station, which may be the place to find cures for many diseases? *shakes head* Everyone is focusing on the negative things that my country has done, and not the positive. I didn't like it when Pres. Bush walked out of the Kyoto Accords; I'm sure I'm not the only one in my Country who disagrees with him. In fact, a growing number of people want to Impeach him; go see www.impeachbush.org .

3) I realize that the USA hasn't been here that long; we've been around only.... what, 228 years compared to some other countries represented here? Yet, who has done so much in so short a time? Yes, there are bad things we have done, both in today's world and in our History. Y'all can say the exact same thing about your country as well.

My point? Don't automatically hate me because I'm American. You might find that I'm not a bad person after all.

I'm not going to waste my time going to your website to reply there, I'm relying in the same forum you posted in, but I suggest you take a look at part two of your post and do a bit of serious looking at the facts again.

Television and the internet were both not invented by America, the moon was first orbited and landed upon by the Russians (albeit with an unmanned craft). Take it from this that you might not be in full possession of all the facts, still it doesn't make you a bad person and I don't hate you for being American or any other reason.

I don't usually reply to any replies after a post like this, because usually what follows is a vicious circle of stupidity that usually cycles around people telling me that I am wrong "because they said so." I don't want to waste my time. Oh...and let me just recap...unless you've been the victim of an act of terrorism on the level of 9/11...you really have no credibility to begin with...

Do you realise that there are a lot of countries in the world which have been experiencing terrorism in its many guises on their home soil for a long, long time. Many of these countries have also experienced far more in the way of loss of lives than America has, maybe not so many in one fell swoop as Americas "wake up call," but still far more and for far longer.

You seem to be trying to say that unless you are an American who lost somebody in the twin towers or the pentagon attacks then you have no credibility when it comes to commenting upon terrorism, sorry, but that is just rubbish.

Television and the internet were both not invented by America,

You are correct with regards to the Television, but the "Internet" is another matter entirely...

Actally the internet was invented by the department of defence as a means of communication if we were attacked by russia. that was in 1969...

The www in the other hand was invented in 1989 in switzerland.

I believe you may have these two things confused.

Regards,
Gaar

You are correct with regards to the Television, but the "Internet" is another matter entirely...

Actally the internet was invented by the department of defence as a means of communication if we were attacked by russia. that was in 1969...

The www in the other hand was invented in 1989 in switzerland.

I believe you may have these two things confused.

Regards,
Gaar

Partly confused. I jumped too quickly there and should have clarified things better, so here goes, Arpanet wasn't the internet as we know it and yes it was the world wide web that I meant. I'm not sure where Switzerland comes into it, as I don't think Tim Berners-Lee was working there in 1989...

:)

Point of the whole thing being that you shouldn't expect the rest of the world to suck up to America just because you've invented a few neat things, also don't expect us to suck up to you for things that you never did invent in the first place. Expect people to complain about the bad things, because that's what people do, just learn to listen and do something about it sometimes...

:headbang: American governments and military actions cannot be considered corrupt, yet most countries that accuse America of this most likely have histories of corrupt governments and military actions. In other words, not calling spades "spades" to justify their beliefs of anti-Americanism.

Why not? Shuffling the reconstruction deals exclusively to US and coalition of the willing companies as Bush wanted to seems corrupt to me. And recently, Iraqi farmers were supposed to destroy their own grain and buy American grain to replace it.

:headbang: People point their fingers and talk about how we're going into Iraq for our oil interests, yet we have documented proof that a quite a few of the UN Member nations that opposed the Iraqi war were getting "under the UN table" deals with Iraq for various oil favors. Some other people, while not having very many scandals in government at least have a prince marrying a mistress after the very questionable death of his wife...

I'm not argueing against this. I'd just like to know which countries you mean.

:headbang: A situation like the war in Iraq has happened before, and the time before it was completely okay. Remember Bosnia? President Clinton scared the brown pudding out of that corrupt leader with military action and everyone applauded. Mr. Hussein did things far worse, and yet, for some reason, people can't admit that the world is better off without him in power.

The thing is, the world as a whole is not better off. Never before have there been so many kidnappings of foreigners before. Likewise, the terror attacks in Spain would not have happened if it weren't for the Iraq war.
My personal problem (here I give you credit that a lot of anti-amercanism is clearly misguided) wasn't that something was done about Saddam. The question was: Why Iraq? There's plenty of other places that need intervention too. Why specifically target Iraq? I doubt Bush did it out of the kindness of his heart, or he would have been doing things about Liberia, Sudan, North Korea, Ruanda, Myanmar, or Syria, just to name a couple of the small ones.

:headbang: They say that the 3,000 people that were turned to dust by exploding airplane fuel aren't worth all of the military casualties that we have in this war. Let me say this and say this clearly: one death by terrorism is one death too many. Do we mourn those that lose their lives in Iraq? Of course we do. On both sides even. Death is a sad thing. People will tell me to move on. I'm sorry. I can't accept that. You will never understand until you have someone make your fellow countrymen and countrywomen a target and kill them with an act as vile as hijacking a plane and flying it into a building. Until that happens to you, I will consider your rambling absolutely nothing more that "Monday Morning Armchair Quarterbacking."

I think you mean that some countries haven't experienced terrorism and are pointing fingers at the States. Germany had problems with the Red Army Faction. France had problems with veterans from a disbanded airborne unit. Russia has been the target of the Chechnyans. These countries opposed the war and suffered from terrorism. I don't understand how you were told to move on, so I won't go into detail on that.

:headbang: What is particularly annoying about all of this is that if something like 9/11 were to happen to you (and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy) there would be the same outrage and the same fervency to wipe out terrorism that we have in this world. Oh, and, another thing...don't tell me that Iraq was never a threat...terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. Plan and simple.

It happened to Spain and see what happened. And Iraq being a threat is true, but not nearly at the level that Bush proclaimed it was. But terrorism isn't neccessarily terrorism. Even the State department distinguishes between various types of terrorism.

I don't usually reply to any replies after a post like this, because usually what follows is a vicious circle of stupidity that usually cycles around people telling me that I am wrong "because they said so." I don't want to waste my time. Oh...and let me just recap...unless you've been the victim of an act of terrorism on the level of 9/11...you really have no credibility to begin with...
Your frustrated, and perhaps rightly so, but by claiming that noone who experienced such a tremendous loss due to terrorism has any credibility is just a way of saying that your right and no one else can say you're wrong. You made a couple valid points, but that last one is just stupid and doesn't compare to the rest of your post.

Partly confused. I jumped too quickly there and should have clarified things better, so here goes, Arpanet wasn't the internet as we know it and yes it was the world wide web that I meant. I'm not sure where Switzerland comes into it, as I don't think Tim Berners-Lee was working there in 1989...

:)

Point of the whole thing being that you shouldn't expect the rest of the world to suck up to America just because you've invented a few neat things, also don't expect us to suck up to you for things that you never did invent in the first place. Expect people to complain about the bad things, because that's what people do, just learn to listen and do something about it sometimes...

http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

Tim Berners-Lee and CERN in Geneva implements a hypertext system to provide efficient information access to the members of the international high-energy physics community.

I believe Geneva is in Switzerland, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

29 posts is nuthin'!

*cough*My Other Account (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=43387)

And what I was refering to was that I was accused of bitching was pointing out that my other posts contained no bitching. I also find it highly amusing that comments may be made about the rest of the world in a generalised manner but when I make some gemeralised comments about america you jump down my throat. Some people get wound up far too easily.

Quote:
People point their fingers and talk about how we're going into Iraq for our oil interests, yet we have documented proof that a quite a few of the UN Member nations that opposed the Iraqi war were getting "under the UN table" deals with Iraq for various oil favors. Some other people, while not having very many scandals in government at least have a prince marrying a mistress after the very questionable death of his wife...

I'm not argueing against this. I'd just like to know which countries you mean.


It's a shot at Britain, regarding Prince Charles and his wife to be, Camilla. Whether there was any conspriracy there or not has nothing to do with any of the American oil interests in Iraq that the comment is meant to be diverting us from. We've all got scandals in government, it doesn't mean that you should be allowed to invade a county under false pretences.

We've all got scandals in government, it doesn't mean that you should be allowed to invade a county under false pretences.

So 10+ years of 17 UN Resolutions is "false pretences" to you?

So I am left to wonder what WOULD have been "real" pretences, to you?

Regards,
Gaar

i have only one question for you. why in heavens name was that purple?
i feel the need to repost this, as it's an extremely prudent question.

http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

Tim Berners-Lee and CERN in Geneva implements a hypertext system to provide efficient information access to the members of the international high-energy physics community.

I believe Geneva is in Switzerland, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar


Thanks for the link and good to see that some Americans know a little bit of world geography. ;)

So, Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman working in Switzerland at the time, invented the www.

So 10+ years of 17 UN Resolutions is "false pretences" to you?

So I am left to wonder what WOULD have been "real" pretences, to you?

Regards,
Gaar

If you go in saying that it's to get WMDs when there aren't any there and you've been told repeatedly that same thing by the inspectors, then you change the reasons that you've gone there in the first place, then yes it's false pretences.

Do you have any idea of how many UN resolutions America broke during the same time period? Check into it, you might be shocked.

If you go in saying that it's to get WMDs when there aren't any there and you've been told repeatedly that same thing by the inspectors, then you change the reasons that you've gone there in the first place, then yes it's false pretences.

Do you have any idea of how many UN resolutions America broke during the same time period? Check into it, you might be shocked.

Yeah, I'm still not convinced that, just because we didn't find any that they weren't there to begin with and we just aren't going to find them, but regardless of that...

Something about hunting down Terrorists and the Countries that Harbor them YOU didn't understand?

The Civil War here in the U.S. was started to save the Union or end it, depending on which side you were on, but it BECAME something quite different before it was all over...

And it is MY firm belief that we should have finished the job in the early 90's when we were there the first time. So I am one that really doesn't care what "excuse" was used, as long as the job got done.

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, I'm still not convinced that, just because we didn't find any that they weren't there to begin with and we just aren't going to find them, but regardless of that...

Something about hunting down Terrorists and the Countries that Harbor them YOU didn't understand?


I understand hunting down terrorists and the countries that harbour them, what does that have to do with Iraq?


And it is MY firm belief that we should have finished the job in the early 90's when we were there the first time. So I am one that really doesn't care what "excuse" was used, as long as the job got done.


I kind of agree that something should have been done about it first time round, then it would have been more easily justified as Saddam had just invaded a neighbour.

The "I don't care what excuse" attitude is a big part of the problem that much of the rest of the world has with America.

People here "attack" America and Americans because you are a warmongering nation. It's funny how you guys use words like Libery, Freedom, Justice bla bla bla etc. and you have no idea what it truly means to be free.
I can list so many other things here but I have no idea were to start but I like the land, that is the ground of the U.S. It's very nice in the South.

I understand hunting down terrorists and the countries that harbour them, what does that have to do with Iraq?

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? It definitely points out many ways that Iraq was "being used" to Harbor different "cells" of Terrorist, including but not limited to the Gas compounds found in Northern Iraq where Al-Queda was doing some production of Lethal gasses.

I kind of agree that something should have been done about it first time round, then it would have been more easily justified as Saddam had just invaded a neighbour.

The "I don't care what excuse" attitude is a big part of the problem that much of the rest of the world has with America.

So what had changed for the better, in your mind, to make you not want to "take out Saddam" after you believe he should have been earlier?

And that the rest of the World has a problem with us bringing Democracy to a part of the World that so desperately needed it, doesn't really matter to me either. You see, I am a firm believer that we should NOT repeat History! You can think of George Bush as OUR Winston Churchill some 70 years after England SHOULD have had him in Power so that Germany may have been dealt with BEFORE they became a Major problem for ALL the World.

We don't want to have to deal with a much larger threat a decade later because we decided to "appease" Europe and allow them to continue to use the "Oil for Food Program" as their personal "Piggy Banks" while disregarding the growing threat.

I suppose YOU believe that the growing call for Democracies across the Middle East was "bound to happen" and that the War in Iraq and their recent Elections have had nothing to do with it?!?!

I have to say, I agree with that recent Article...

Europe, thy name is Appeasement.

Or even better...

Europe, thy name is Cowardice!

And it was written by a European…

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

Regards,
Gaar

I've noticed that the people who quit NS are those who post the most anti-American diatribes. Then, because they can't find someone to agree with them, and can't find an American who says, "oh yes, you're so right, I am so sorry," they leave in a petulant huff.

It makes me think that the typical non-American, especially a European, doesn't have the stomach to stand up for their own convictions more than a few weeks.

Why people on here attack America and Americans?

Why do American rightwingers find everything that is not American propaganda automaticly Anti-American? Even the mildest critic or discussion is seen by them as a planned plot.

Why do American rightwingers find everything that is not American propaganda automaticly Anti-American? Even the mildest critic or discussion is seen by them as a planned plot.

It's one thing to object to a particular policy.

It's another thing to paint it with the brush that "it's bad because America did it".

It's not a planned plot - you just need to stop saying you hate Bush and hate America.

Go ahead and criticize the war on Iraq - criticism is good. But don't turn around and say "this is more of what America does".

Oh, and subtle nation name there.

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? It definitely points out many ways that Iraq was "being used" to Harbor different "cells" of Terrorist, including but not limited to the Gas compounds found in Northern Iraq where Al-Queda was doing some production of Lethal gasses.


Come off it, even your own government has since admitted that Iraq wasn't hiding terrorists. Since the invasion though, it's a bit of a different matter.



So what had changed for the better, in your mind, to make you not want to "take out Saddam" after you believe he should have been earlier?


Not much changed, but a lot of time passed, it would have been much more reasonable to continue prosecuting an attack against him then. To wait ten years and then dress it up with a bunch of spurious lies as reasons stinks though.

And that the rest of the World has a problem with us bringing Democracy to a part of the World that so desperately needed it, doesn't really matter to me either. You see, I am a firm believer that we should NOT repeat History! You can think of George Bush as OUR Winston Churchill some 70 years after England SHOULD have had him in Power so that Germany may have been dealt with BEFORE they became a Major problem for ALL the World.

We don't want to have to deal with a much larger threat a decade later because we decided to "appease" Europe and allow them to continue to use the "Oil for Food Program" as their personal "Piggy Banks" while disregarding the growing threat.

I suppose YOU believe that the growing call for Democracies across the Middle East was "bound to happen" and that the War in Iraq and their recent Elections have had nothing to do with it?!?!

I have to say, I agree with that recent Article...

Europe, thy name is Appeasement.

Or even better...

Europe, thy name is Cowardice!

And it was written by a European…

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

Regards,
Gaar

Here we go again, you wonder why people bitch and moan when you don't care about their objections, because it doesn't matter to you. If they don't matter to you stop whinging about our complaints.

Saddams threat got larger because of American support in putting him in power in the first place, your monster that you fed and grew then lost control of...

Oh and please don't end up posting that link to that neo-con article as some kind of reasonable justification to every action of the US's, like some other people have been, as I think it's patently obvious to me that it's a load of far-right warmongering excuses for the US to do whatever it wants to the rest of the world in order to maintain its position at any costs. It's not reasonable or balanced in the slightest.

I have to say, I agree with that recent Article...

Europe, thy name is Appeasement.

Or even better...

Europe, thy name is Cowardice!



"NS has entered the sphere of dismissive tactics as witnessed by the recent threads on anti-americanism. That is the standard reaction now from virtually anyone on the right side of the political spectrum to anyone who dares to take issue with current policies. There are few threads where subjects of any value are discussed, those few that do attempt to do so almost immediately seem to sink into a lurid pit of personal attacks." so said Zep, i only can suscribe this regarding the blatent lies, propaganda and insults of forms like Urantia II.

Me thinks american arrogance plays a big part in this.
For instance your post would make us believe that you thing the US is somewhat ahead of the rest of the world. Foreigners don't see it like that, especially where I live, in France, where people think France is the most politically advanced country on earth. This is why they are disappointed when they hear people in the US talk with some kind of blind arrogance.
Of course I know France is not better than the rest, but that is what the people think in France.

It's one thing to object to a particular policy.

It's another thing to paint it with the brush that "it's bad because America did it".. Do I hate the US, it's people, country aso by asking a rethorical question? That is such a lousy defence and simple.

It's not a planned plot - you just need to stop saying you hate Bush and hate America.. Why? Because you say so? Booohahahahahaha!
My question fits you because you immediatly react with the typical "you hate us/my country" because you don't like critics or can't respond to the above question. nJerzus, you really don't understand it , do you.


Go ahead and criticize the war on Iraq - criticism is good. But don't turn around and say "this is more of what America does". .
Again, enleighten the class, did I?



Oh, and subtle nation name there. Thank you, your welcom,but thank your president for it, thanks to his lies about almost everything in Iraq and the dirty tricks politics of his administration, it was easy to find.

I've noticed that the people who quit NS are those who post the most anti-American diatribes. Then, because they can't find someone to agree with them, and can't find an American who says, "oh yes, you're so right, I am so sorry," they leave in a petulant huff.
Did these people that left, and BTW, can no longer defend themselves, express to you that they were leaving for the reasons that you have just stated here? :eek:

It makes me think that the typical non-American, especially a European, doesn't have the stomach to stand up for their own convictions more than a few weeks.
Not only do I think that you are wrong on that premise, but I think it is "gutless" to attack someone who cannot defend themselves. Your brash generalization is way out of line.

And it was written by a European…

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

Regards,
Gaar
You have no idea who Axel Springer is, do you? The Axel Springer publishing house runs Europe's largest daily newspaper, BILD. This newspaper is reputed for totally misrepresenting facts as well as other violations of the German press code.

Come off it, even your own government has since admitted that Iraq wasn't hiding terrorists. Since the invasion though, it's a bit of a different matter.

Link please... You don't mind if I don't take your word for it, do you?

Pretty easy to just say such things, much harder to back them with evidence.


Not much changed, but a lot of time passed, it would have been much more reasonable to continue prosecuting an attack against him then. To wait ten years and then dress it up with a bunch of spurious lies as reasons stinks though.

17 UN Resolutions and you say "a bunch of spurious lies"?!?!

I guess you didn't really care because they weren't shooting at YOUR Pilots in the no-fly zone...


Here we go again, you wonder why people bitch and moan when you don't care about their objections, because it doesn't matter to you. If they don't matter to you stop whinging about our complaints.

Saddams threat got larger because of American support in putting him in power in the first place, your monster that you fed and grew then lost control of....

So we let the "opposition" try for better than 10+ years and they didn't care what MY "objections" were to their appeasement and now I am supposed to care what they think about us taking action because what they were trying didn't work?!?!

Funny how you believe you have some Right to be listened to when you don't listen yourself when things are "going your way"...

Oh and please don't end up posting that link to that neo-con article as some kind of reasonable justification to every action of the US's, like some other people have been, as I think it's patently obvious to me that it's a load of far-right warmongering excuses for the US to do whatever it wants to the rest of the world in order to maintain its position at any costs. It's not reasonable or balanced in the slightest.

I think I have stated my position clear enough. I believe it is you and your "type" who have put us in the position we are in, and now we are going to do something about it... Bitch all you want, it's your Right... Just as it was my Right to Bitch when you and yours weren't doing anything about it!

How does it feel to not having things go as YOU would like? Welcome to MY World about a decade ago my friend, get used to it...

Regards,
Gaar

You have no idea who Axel Springer is, do you? The Axel Springer publishing house runs Europe's largest daily newspaper, BILD. This newspaper is reputed for totally misrepresenting facts as well as other violations of the German press code.

If it helps at all to put it into terms that you might have a reference to, Bild is kind of in the same league as The New York Post when it comes to inflammatory writing...

I realize that many of the rabid anti-Americans on here are going to post enlightening things like: "'Cause Americans are stupid!" or "'Cause you keep attacking other countries!" or "'Cause American soldiers are all trigger-happy!" or similar strangeness. But I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.

Here are some of the reasons I believe there are so many on here who post knee-jerk anti-Americanism:

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Pearl Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world. I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.

Another poster ( The Alma Mater ) referred me to an article about the current differences between how Americans view the world and how Europeans view the world. I highly recommend it, since it goes a long way toward explaining these differing world views: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"

Yours is a convoluted explanation based on conjecture and speculation. I think it can be summed up very easily: America now the world's greatest superpower, making them highly influential throughout the world.

Since the adoption of paper money America has been at the forefront of world economic policy, determining the structure of today's global economy. As well as being a tremendous trade partner to many nations its also the source industry. Given its size, industrial resources and history it's also considered the world's greatest military power. (etc, etc, etc...)

With that much power and influence America is open to a great deal of criticism. Saying "America sucks" is a criticism, if a very blunt and stupid generalisation.. But then again, your post was stupid and blunt, so maybe you shouldn't judge them that harshly?

If it helps at all to put it into terms that you might have a reference to, Bild is kind of in the same league as The New York Post when it comes to inflammatory writing...
I don't know the Post, but if anyone knows German, here's a site by four dedicated journalists that attempt to unmask the newspaper:

www.bildblog.de

I think I have stated my position clear enough. I believe it is you and your "type" who have put us in the position we are in, and now we are going to do something about it... Bitch all you want, it's your Right... Just as it was my Right to Bitch when you and yours weren't doing anything about it!
Nothing like ad hominen attacks to help the debate along...geez :eek:

Who trained Bin Laden?
Who gave the Taliban money?
Who gave the Taliban resources?
Who stationed troops in the holiest of Islamic lands?
Who gave Saddam WMD?
Who took Iraq OFF the terrorist list?
Who established diplomatic relations with Iraq?
Who turned a blind eye to Saddam using gas against the Iranians?
Who sold weapons to the Iranians when it appeared that Iraq would defeat Iran?

Somehow this is OUR fault, that YOU are in the mess YOU are in?

If it helps at all to put it into terms that you might have a reference to, Bild is kind of in the same league as The New York Post when it comes to inflammatory writing...

Does that make the points he makes any less credible?

I see no one is addressing his assertions but rather attacking his character, as if that is some sort of debating method to discredit an idea!?!?

Anyone care to address the substance of the article?

Regards,
Gaar

I see no one is addressing his assertions but rather attacking his character, as if that is some sort of debating method to discredit an idea!?!?
See post # 563 regarding "attacking his character". :eek:

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Is this actually true?
Does the US not have troops in Panama around the canal?
Does it not have troops in the UK and Germany?
How long was west berlin occupied by American forces?
Does being in a country at the request of an elitist oligarchy against the wishes of the majority population not count as occupation?

If the CIA has a base in a given country and equips and trains a fascist government in that country to fight guerillas who represent the majority population, and in return expects said fascist government to respect american wishes in its domestic and trade policies, does it matter that the troops have mostly gone home and the head of state is not an american?

Does that make the points he makes any less credible?

I see no one is addressing his assertions but rather attacking his character, as if that is some sort of debating method to discredit an idea!?!?

Anyone care to address the substance of the article?

Regards,
Gaar
Which substance are you talking about? Is this article worth adressing?
Any basic history book can adress this silly article. Anyone who has studied basic european history will dismiss this article as foolish.

*snip*

Funny Canuck, you have a lot of questions but always seem to ignore those asked of your side.

There has been plenty of things cited about why several European Nations just conveniently didn't "want" to fight a War in Iraq because of corruption within the UN, yet no one wants to address that, why is that?

It also seems a bit weird that no one is giving ANY credit to the War in creating the current calls for Democracy in the Middle East, why is that?

Well, I shouldn't say no one, just the Liberals on this site it seems...

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050306-110218-9266r.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1034732,00.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/wordpress/?p=76

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2005/March/opinion_March16.xml&section=opinion&col=

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/40743.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050307.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html

Regards,
Gaar

Does that make the points he makes any less credible?

I see no one is addressing his assertions but rather attacking his character, as if that is some sort of debating method to discredit an idea!?!?

Anyone care to address the substance of the article?

Regards,
Gaar
The man runs the biggest lying crap written on paper in Europe. His reporters continuously put more emphasis on fancy words than they do on content. The Bild is most often compared to children's books because of little text in large, easily comprehensible letters, and plenty of pictures. They have a column in which they have losers and winners of the day, and if they aren't praising Helmut Kohl as the winner, its one of their staff.
And you consider him a CREDIBLE source? He makes money with inflammatory and provocative writing!

As to the content:
Appeasement would have been allowing Saddam to keep Kuwait. The Gulf War got UN support because there was a broad consensus from all P5 nations in the Security Council.

As for Kosovo, while Europeans bickered, they eventually did something. It can't really be compared to the situation in Iraq.

I haven't heard about an Islamic holiday to be instituted here. Sounds like something the Bild would write to sell its newspapers.

Excuse me "...has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush..."? He's defending a proven liar.

Even at the bottom of the article it says that there were things added in in translating. This is not a credible source.

I guess you didn't really care because they weren't shooting at YOUR Pilots in the no-fly zone...


MY pilots? or even Whinging Trancer's pilots? Which pilots belong to me? Which pilots belong to Whinging Trancers? Which pilots belong to you?

As it goes, I'm british and RAF flew bombing missions in the no-fly zone for the whole time between the first and second gulf wars. I don't consider the RAF to be *my pilots* though. I don't own them, or contribute voluntarily to their existence.

Which substance are you talking about? Is this article worth adressing?
Any basic history book can adress this silly article. Anyone who has studied basic european history will dismiss this article as foolish.

Again, no substance, just attacks...

And they complain when it happens to them.

How typical.

Regards,
Gaar

...
Come on.
There has been an election for an interim assembly and 100 000++ dead people.
You can't hide your head in the sand for that long. This war was a big waste of lives.

It also seems a bit weird that no one is giving ANY credit to the War in creating the current calls for Democracy in the Middle East, why is that?

Well, I shouldn't say no one, just the Liberals on this site it seems...

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050306-110218-9266r.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1034732,00.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/wordpress/?p=76

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2005/March/opinion_March16.xml&section=opinion&col=

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/40743.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050307.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html

Regards,
Gaar

Do you think that the citizens of undemocratic Arab countries did not want democracy before the war?

Do you think that the citizens of undemocratic Arab countries did not deserve democracy before the war?

So what's changed?

If I had a newspaper that printed my opinion all the time, would you quote it here, even though my opinion is that the war was unjustified and remains so?

Link please... You don't mind if I don't take your word for it, do you?

Pretty easy to just say such things, much harder to back them with evidence.


Tell you what, you do some checking for yourself for once.


17 UN Resolutions and you say "a bunch of spurious lies"?!?!

I guess you didn't really care because they weren't shooting at YOUR Pilots in the no-fly zone...


The 17 UN resolutions were not what the US or Britain used as the reason to go to war, also refer back to my previous post in reply to you saying his before and tell me if you know yet how many the USA broke in the same time frame.

As to pilots being shot down, I'm British, do you think it was just American pilots who got shot at there?


So we let the "opposition" try for better than 10+ years and they didn't care what MY "objections" were to their appeasement and now I am supposed to care what they think about us taking action because what they were trying didn't work?!?!

Funny how you believe you have some Right to be listened to when you don't listen yourself when things are "going your way"...


I think I have stated my position clear enough. I believe it is you and your "type" who have put us in the position we are in, and now we are going to do something about it... Bitch all you want, it's your Right... Just as it was my Right to Bitch when you and yours weren't doing anything about it!

How does it feel to not having things go as YOU would like? Welcome to MY World about a decade ago my friend, get used to it...

Regards,
Gaar

Funny really, before the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq the middle east was calming down and becomin more pro-western and more pro-democracy of its own volition. If you want to check into this take a look at what was happening in Iran at the time and how the power has swung back to the clerics since America started banging its drum.

The USA was just as involved in the set up of sanctions as we were, now you seem to think they were nothing to do with you. Now because a majority of the rest of the world objected you seem to think that you weren't listened to...

9/11 was the moment when the USA was brought into the same world as the rest of us, you finally started taking hits on your own soil and you seem to think that you're the first people in the world to have suffered, climb down off your pedestal.

Get used to the fact that a fair amount of the world doesn't think that the US is automatically right and that some of them are stupid enough or fanatical enough to try to do something noticable about it. It doesn't justify your outlandish responses though, learn some humility and maybe look at the reasons why some people get so upset and you might go some way to becoming a more mature country which people didn't want to attack so readily.

Come on.
There has been an election for an interim assembly and 100 000++ dead people.
You can't hide your head in the sand for that long. This war was a big waste of lives.

You are free to have any OPINION you want, just as I am...

I guess Syria would have moved out of Palestine on their own too, also in your mind?

Again, bitch all you want. I am going to watch as the Middle East begins to change in ways people only imagined just a few short years ago...

Just as no one believed Russia would fall so quickly.

You guys have been allowed to be wrong for long enough, now sit back and watch as something actually GETS DONE!

You don't have to thank us now, your grandchildren will thank us in the decades to come.

Regards,
Gaar

Again, no substance, just attacks...

And they complain when it happens to them.

How typical.

Regards,
Gaar
Read the article. "Europe your name is cowardice". This is baseless flame.
The UK colonized 25% of the world.
France invaded most of the first world.
The third reich in Germany slaughtered entire populations.
France, Spain, Protugal and the UK created the US by slaughtering indians.
Even today, France is still activelly securing its assets by force in Ivory coast and Congo and shamelessly faced head to head with the only remaining superpower in the world. The UK is still dictating the policy of its former colonies.

You are free to have any OPINION you want, just as I am...

I guess Syria would have moved out of Palestine on their own too, also in your mind?

Again, bitch all you want. I am going to watch as the Middle East begins to change in ways people only imagined just a few short years ago...

Just as no one believed Russia would fall so quickly.

You guys have been allowed to be wrong for long enough, now sit back and watch as something actually GETS DONE!

You don't have to thank us now, your grandchildren will thank us in the decades to come.

Regards,
Gaar
Go to Russia and see how the mafia is getting things done.
I'm not thanking my grand fathers for what they have done to Africa. I don't think my grandchildren will thank me for what I have done to the middle east.
Talk about changing the Middle east, but that was the point with Saddam when he invaded Iran. He though they were islamist extremists. That was the point with the Talebans who were supposed to drive the USSR out.

Tell you what, you do some checking for yourself for once.

Shall we check to see who has been supplying links to support their assertions and who hasn't?

Again, you made the assertion so the proof falls on you, just as I provide links to back mine...

Regards,
Gaar

You are free to have any OPINION you want, just as I am...

I guess Syria would have moved out of Palestine on their own too, also in your mind?



Do you mean The Lebanon or Palestine?


If it's the Lebanon, they'd already agreed to quite some time ago and the withdrawal is going ahead according to the timetable that was published in the UN, now the US seems to want to claim all the credit for this...

You don't have to thank us now, your grandchildren will thank us in the decades to come.


Arrogance I see. You have no proof that the future will turn out that way. I could just as easily say my grandchildren will be cursing what you did in decades to come.

Do you think that the citizens of undemocratic Arab countries did not want democracy before the war?

Do you think that the citizens of undemocratic Arab countries did not deserve democracy before the war?

Nope, I am sure they did... Funny how they are now actually doing something about it though, isn't it?

So what's changed?

I would imagine that, after watching Iraq go through a very succesful Election, they are all thinking that it is more and more likely that they may actually be able to do it themselves.

Freedom and Democracy are very contagious things. I believe George Bush predicted such a thing would happen, didn't he? And now you are going to deny that it is happening?!?!

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Regards,
Gaar

Do you mean The Lebanon or Palestine?


If it's the Lebanon, they'd already agreed to quite some time ago and the withdrawal is going ahead according to the timetable that was published in the UN, now the US seems to want to claim all the credit for this...

unless you post a link to the timetable, you're a left wing propagandist. Or you could back up what you say by posting a link to a newspaper column that agrees with you.

Arrogance I see. You have no proof that the future will turn out that way. I could just as easily say my grandchildren will be cursing what you did in decades to come.

Yes, just as many of you are ALREADY saying such things...

So now it's not my Right to disagree with you and think it will actually turn out in our favor?

Regards,
Gaar

Nope, I am sure they did... Funny how they are now actually doing something about it though, isn't it?



I would imagine that, after watching Iraq go through a very succesful Election, they are all thinking that it is more and more likely that they may actually be able to do it themselves.

Freedom and Democracy are very contagious things. I believe George Bush predicted such a thing would happen, didn't he? And now you are going to deny that it is happening?!?!

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Regards,
GaarYou confuse chaos with freedom.

Freedom and Democracy are very contagious things. I believe George Bush predicted such a thing would happen, didn't he? And now you are going to deny that it is happening?!?!

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Regards,
Gaar

Freedom and democracy may well be contagious things, but you don't have to cut a country open and stuff them in the wound to insure that the infection takes hold... Give it time and the people themselves will demand it and get it for themselves and love it all the more because they attained it by themselves for themselves without the indignity of an invading army tearing their country to pieces.

unless you post a link to the timetable, you're a left wing propagandist. Or you could back up what you say by posting a link to a newspaper column that agrees with you.

Hmmmm....

Sounds to me like the agreement has JUST been made, and that the U.S. is the MAIN backer of seeing it is done, and that the "timetable" is now being worked out.

And yes, I meant Lebanon and not Palestine.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, just as many of you are ALREADY saying such things...

So now it's not my Right to disagree with you and think it will actually turn out in our favor?

Regards,
Gaar
But you forget there is a law. Whether you agree with it or not you must obey the law.
Read Plato and the republic about that.

unless you post a link to the timetable, you're a left wing propagandist. Or you could back up what you say by posting a link to a newspaper column that agrees with you.

I'll see if I can find one, when I have time... I work and this was just meant to take up a little bit of my time in an hour...

I'm just repeating what I remember reading, I know that's not the best way but (I'll take a leaf out of Urantias book here) Tough!

Hmmmm....

Sounds to me like the agreement has JUST been made, and that the U.S. is the MAIN backer of seeing it is done, and that the "timetable" is now being worked out.

Sounds like that to you because you believe everything that supports your position and disbelieve everything that contradicts it.

Freedom and democracy may well be contagious things, but you don't have to cut a country open and stuff them in the wound to insure that the infection takes hold... Give it time and the people themselves will demand it and get it for themselves and love it all the more because they attained it by themselves for themselves without the indignity of an invading army tearing their country to pieces.

Really?!?!

Perhaps you would like to tell the South Koreans that.

My Father recieves a "Thank You" card every Anniversary of their Freedom, thanking him for assisting them in obtaining it.

Regards,
Gaar

You do realise that saying people are jealous of you makes them hate you even more, right? It makes you all look like a bunch of egotistical, bigheaded dicks.

I patiently went through 1 1/2 pages of answers before I came upon this charming entry. Nearly two pages before someone started throwing their impressive vocabulary around. A loss of respect - certainly. I really love the name-calling.

It's amusing to watch on these forums daily and note the increasing number of people who don't know how to argue intelligently, so they resort to these kind of no-brained, backalley brawl antics!

Thank you for the laugh!

Sounds like that to you because you believe everything that supports your position and disbelieve everything that contradicts it.

Nope, I was just listening to the News as they described the current situation as it is unfolding.

Really?!?!

Perhaps you would like to tell the South Koreans that.

My Father recieves a "Thank You" card every Anniversary of their Freedom, thanking him for assisting them in obtaining it.

Regards,
Gaar

Who does he get the card from? From their US-backed government? Or from someone orphaned by the Korean War? Or from someone whose kids were on the other side of the new border from them when the border closed? Or from the Korean people living in the North who weren't helped at all by the war?

If an american muslim sent a thankyou note to Osama Bin Laden every september 11th, would that make the 9/11 attacks a good thing?

You confuse chaos with freedom.

No, actually YOU confuse YOUR OPINION with FACTS.

Regards,
Gaar

Sounds like that to you because you believe everything that supports your position and disbelieve everything that contradicts it.

Nope, I was just listening to the News as they described the current situation as it is unfolding.

You were listening to a specific news broadcast on a specific channel put there by people with a specific point of view. And it supports your point of view, and you believe it.

No, actually YOU confuse YOUR OPINION with FACTS.

Regards,
Gaar
You think that because there was an election there is freedom. But when you are too afraid to walk in the street because you may be shot dead by some psycho isalofascist or when you are shot for driving too fast near a checkpoint, there is no freedom.
And you can use your rethoric all you want. The age of colonization is dead.

Who does he get the card from? From their US-backed government? Or from someone orphaned by the Korean War? Or from someone whose kids were on the other side of the new border from them when the border closed? Or from the Korean people living in the North who weren't helped at all by the war?

If an american muslim sent a thankyou note to Osama Bin Laden every september 11th, would that make the 9/11 attacks a good thing?

Hm. My father was in Korea when the North Koreans attacked across the border. His parents were captured by North Korean troops when they came down to Taegu. His mother was raped and skinned alive, and his father was tortured to death - first by having his testicles ripped from his scrotum with pliers, and then having his eyes gouged out - then being beaten with an iron bar until all the bones in his body were broken.

They were civilians.

If an american muslim sent a thankyou note to Osama Bin Laden every september 11th, would that make the 9/11 attacks a good thing?

That you would compare a War to Free a Nation to attacks on innocent civilians says a lot about you and your agenda...

Regards,
Gaar

unless you post a link to the timetable, you're a left wing propagandist. Or you could back up what you say by posting a link to a newspaper column that agrees with you.


OK, I'll back down from that past statement, I was mixing up the Taif accords from 1989 which the Syrians and Lebanese used as the justification for their troops staying there...

My bad

BBC round up on Syria/Lebanon is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4308823.stm)

Does that make the points he makes any less credible?

I see no one is addressing his assertions but rather attacking his character, as if that is some sort of debating method to discredit an idea!?!?

Anyone care to address the substance of the article?

Regards,
Gaar
Ok.
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. After the war in Europe, Europeans should have attacked Soviet Union in order not to let Eastern European countries fall under communism? Sorry, no resources at the time. Glorifying communist regime, now that was bad. It wasn't like every European did that. I'm guessing the far left idolized it though. That to me - at the time - is somewhat understandable; they believed in their cause. Those guys have long since flip-flopped of course

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us. True. Kosovo was handled badly. Seems like the darfurians are the next to suffer from this. Still I don't see anybody in SC wanting to call it genocide... that would lead to having to take care of it.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. 'Protecting democracy'? That must mean western democracy, right? There is precious little democracy to be protected in the Middle East. And Europe is condoning suicide bombings against Israelis? Well, not all of Europe, surely..?

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program. True. The Food-for-Oil program was poorly managed. The SC of UN should have done better. I don't want to blame USA in any way, but wasn't USA too part of the SC when the program was created? In no way that takes the blame off of its European counterparts though.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". This seems to be the most important part of this essay. I think Mr. Dörfer wants to rally Europeans against the rise of muslim threat. Just replace the word 'muslim' with 'JEW' in that paragraph. It's much more interesting that way.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. This to me seems like a call for an anti-jihad jihad of some kind. He may be right though. Maybe we should slaughter ALL of them untameable savages.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. Don't know enough about German and British politics to comment. I thought Reagan wasn't alone in ending the cold war though. People like Lech Walesa, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Pope (among other factors) had something to do with it too, no?

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
Sorry. Ran out of steam. I found it too full of rhetoric to try to dissect it. Everything is at stake, and that's why Europe should too reject it's welfare systems and risk our economies. Right, well, I don't see it that way, but I hope history doesn't prove Mr. Dörfer right.
TV pastors? You have those in southern parts of Europe? Cool. I personally have never seen one. I sure as hell wouldn't "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive" though.

Sorry if I took too much of your time with this. Go back to the pissing contest mode.

--snip--
your name fills me with boundless joy. oh, and nice points. well put all that. hee hee, bunnyducks. if that was an animal, i'd fry it up and eat it. and it would be delicious. :D

I realize that many of the rabid anti-Americans on here are going to post enlightening things like: "'Cause Americans are stupid!" or "'Cause you keep attacking other countries!" or "'Cause American soldiers are all trigger-happy!" or similar strangeness. But I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.

Here are some of the reasons I believe there are so many on here who post knee-jerk anti-Americanism:

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Pearl Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world. I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.

Another poster ( The Alma Mater ) referred me to an article about the current differences between how Americans view the world and how Europeans view the world. I highly recommend it, since it goes a long way toward explaining these differing world views: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"

*applauds*

Many people don't despise Americans, they tend to despise the American culture.

Specifically multinational cooperations, and a very odd attitude to money.
The best way I have of explaining it is by quoting something I read in a book. It was a British woman commenting on the American way of making money and it went something like:

"In America everyone has a chance to make it big. America is stupendously rich - there are resources enough for anyone with the right kind of entrepeneurial mind to make themselves rich. Whereas in Europe, if you make yourself richer, you are automatically making someone else poorer. There's just not enough to go round." The point being, there's an obsession with growth...is everyone getting richer? Americans seem not to have realised that resources can only stretch so far and they use them up without, seemingly, a care in the world. I'm not saying they're the only nation like this - just that it does seem that way.

The next problem is that Americans, with so little history, seem a) to be about to repeat our earlier mistakes, ones we hoped the world had grown out of, like imperialism, and b) tends to vastly over-exaggerate what history it has. To listen to some Americans talk, you'd think that the Americans had won WWII single-handedly. There's no mention of how long America hung back, or of the people who'd been fighting for years, it's "We defeated fascism! Us!"

I heard an old guy once mention that, ever since WWII, when all the Allies had gratefully recieved American help and called them "heroes", that America has had a HERO COMPLEX ever since. "We are the Americans! We save the world! Rah!" It instantly implies "and this is because we are better! We must be, since we are heroes! Rah!"

America is desperate to be heroic. The patriotic pride thing stems out of just how heroic the nation is...it's like all that praise puffed you up obcenely. I was never one of the dumb, unthinking "War is bad" bleaters, but I could see why it was a bad idea straight away. Here comes HERO America, stepping in and righting wrongs! As an older country, like an older adult, we've lost that fresh idealism and replaced it, in part with cynicism, in part with realism.

America cannot make it all all right.

America's personality is like that of an adolescent at the moment, certain it knows everything, unwilling to listen to things it does not understand, certain IT can change the world where everyone else has failed. And either accepting things it does not understand completely, or denying them utterly. You've met that kind of teen. The know-it-all stance is irritating.

Combine that with a saving-people thing and an awesome strength, and you can see why it offends Europe.

We (Britain) went through that adolescence decades ago. We've just managed to get wise enough to hopefully gain some stability when along comes America, passionate and earnest, naieve, ignorant and clumsy, shouting at everyone "You're doing it wrong! *I* know how to do it all!" Full of passion and vigour, but utterly inexperienced. If some adolescent kid came up to you like that, you'd either put them straight or ignore them. I'd put them straight, but some kids just aren't willing to listen until they've seen the evidence with their own eyes. Like America. Worse yet, America is STRONG. This is something like an old, experienced man, who knows his limits (or most of them) being told what to do by a young, inexperienced, green whippersnapper, who unfortunately is strong enough to pick him up single-handedly and throw him into line. We're just hoping that as America grows up it doesn't screw everything up too much in it's awkwardness, and we're angry because we're virtually powerless to stop it if it does.

Lastly, because America is so powerful, everything about it is noticed more, including it's faults. Sure, all the old men in the club have faults too, but they're not so pushy about it, and they don't tell everyone to do it the same way because they know everything. See what I mean?

America is stoutly moralistic in an adolescent, black-and-white sort of way. Europe is not, and has not been for some time. Seeing the world in black-and-white is dangerous...it's a very fine line between morality and intolerance. Finally, there's a website linked to on the first page:

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

Here's a small quote from it:

The United States, they argue, resorts to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

your name fills me with boundless joy. oh, and nice points. well put all that. hee hee, bunnyducks. if that was an animal, i'd fry it up and eat it. and it would be delicious. :D
It IS an animal. Check my flag...

It IS an animal. Check my flag...
you can now officially consider my mind blown. and it does look delicious.

Many people don't despise Americans, they tend to despise the American culture.



at least we never went around to colonize other countries in order to oppress the locals and steal the riches for ourselves, like Britain, France etc... all did.

Thank Britain for concentration camps, segregation and all that, thank the Arabs for 'inventing' slavery and thank the USA for freedom.

This seems to be the most important part of this essay. I think Mr. Dörfer wants to rally Europeans against the rise of muslim threat. Just replace the word 'muslim' with 'JEW' in that paragraph. It's much more interesting that way.

Or replace it with "Nazi" to get a better idea of what he is actually saying.

Don't know enough about German and British politics to comment. I thought Reagan wasn't alone in ending the cold war though. People like Lech Walesa, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Pope (among other factors) had something to do with it too, no?.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out where he said that Reagan alone was responsible? But that isn't what he is discussing, is it? He is saying that only 2 recent U.S. Presidents were willing to "Fight the good Fight" as it were, isn't he?

Regards,
Gaar

and thank the USA for freedom.

:rolleyes:

at least we never went around to colonize other countries in order to oppress the locals and steal the riches for ourselves, like Britain, France etc... all did.

Thank Britain for concentration camps, segregation and all that, thank the Arabs for 'inventing' slavery and thank the USA for freedom.
um, yeah we did. the phillipines, panama, much of central america, all of the continental american land was captured, if you want to be technical about it, and we did try to enslave the native americans for a while, until we found that they kept dying. and that's just to name a few.

Who the hell gives a shit. Especially when you can ascend to the next level.

all of the continental american land was captured, .

And here I thought we PAID France for a good portion of it...

I guess I was wrong... Someone might want to see if we can get any of that cash back from France then, I believe they will find it under "The Louisianna Purchase".

Do you think we can get the Interest on it too?

Regards,
Gaar

And here I thought we PAID France for a good portion of it...

I guess I was wrong... Someone might want to see if we can get any of that cash back from France then, I believe they will find it under "The Louisianna Purchase".

Do you think we can get the Interest on it too?

Regards,
Gaar
this implies a concept of ownership that gets a tad sketchy, at best. but i didn't come here to argue, just watch, chuckle and point out occasional idiosyncrasies that violently clash with my own worldview.

Or replace it with "Nazi" to get a better idea of what he is actually saying. Why not. You can replace it with pretty much any word. I think Döpfner's aim was to point out that muslims must be stopped. To some extent I can see why he feels that way. In the time when it was written, there were the incidents in the Netherlands and elsewhere (van Gogh etc.). I was just trying to point out that, when replacing it with the word 'jew', it sounds a bit like a passage from Mein Kampf.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out where he said that Reagan alone was responsible? But that isn't what he is discussing, is it? He is saying that only 2 recent U.S. Presidents were willing to "Fight the good Fight" as it were, isn't he?

Regards,
Gaar
Sure I would be kind enough. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery.

Yes, just as many of you are ALREADY saying such things...

So now it's not my Right to disagree with you and think it will actually turn out in our favor?


Not at all, you are fully entitled to your opinion and you seem very happy with letting others know it. You are proud of your country and again I have no problem with that. Now you may not care what other people think of you/america in general but surely you must stop to think about why so many critise/dislike/hate (delete as appropriate) your nation. It doesn't come from envy/jealousy.....

But I'll go back to lurking again and just reading now unless I feel something is worth repling to again.

Sure I would be kind enough.

Point taken, I missed that statement it seems. I have to say that is over the top...

While I believe that Reagan was a significant player in the Fall of the Soviet Union, he was FAR from the only one.

Regards,
Gaar

Now you may not care what other people think of you/america in general but surely you must stop to think about why so many critise/dislike/hate (delete as appropriate) your nation. It doesn't come from envy/jealousy.....

I never said it did, and I don't believe it does.

I believe we have some sincere differences in how we view the World and what we believe we can do about the problems we see in it. I also believe that not ALL people are against what we are doing and that those who are are just being much more vocal than those who are not.

What I don't get is, how it is some cannot admit that there are some successes in what we are doing, as I will admit that there are quite a few things not going as well as we would like?

No one ever said this was going to be easy or quick and yet when things go poorly and or don't happen as quickly as some might like they begin to rail on about how it is failing without noting any of the successes, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

Not at all, you are fully entitled to your opinion and you seem very happy with letting others know it. You are proud of your country and again I have no problem with that. Now you may not care what other people think of you/america in general but surely you must stop to think about why so many critise/dislike/hate (delete as appropriate) your nation. It doesn't come from envy/jealousy.....

But I'll go back to lurking again and just reading now unless I feel something is worth repling to again.
Resentment then??

Resentment then??
hey pops, hows the leg?

I never said it did, and I don't believe it does.

I believe we have some sincere differences in how we view the World and what we believe we can do about the problems we see in it. I also believe that not ALL people are against what we are doing and that those who are are just being much more vocal than those who are not.

What I don't get is, how it is some cannot admit that there are some successes in what we are doing, as I will admit that there are quite a few things not going as well as we would like?

No one ever said this was going to be easy or quick and yet when things go poorly and or don't happen as quickly as some might like they begin to rail on about how it is failing without noting any of the successes, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar
I believe the US administration has not yet admited the mistakes it did and continues to arrogantly and stubbornly insist in its unilateral path when most of them should be under investigation for war crimes or in jail at the moment.

I believe the US administration has not yet admited the mistakes it did and continues to arrogantly and stubbornly insist in its unilateral path when most of them should be under investigation for war crimes or in jail at the moment.

Let me see if I have this correctly.

Under your concept, no nation should be able to do anything unless the rest of the world agrees with it and gives it permission.

Right.

Unilateral action is taken by any nation when the rest of the world doesn't agree with it.

We asked - and some even came along (The UK for instance).

Is invading Iraq then unilateral? Or is the UK not a country?

hey pops, hows the leg?
LOL! Good morning. My leg seems to be ok, although the cast still irritates the piss outta me! How's u? :)

LOL! Good morning. My leg seems to be ok, although the cast still irritates the piss outta me! How's u? :)
19, that's how! and generally fantastic. talked with my gf for about 4 hours last night, and it was probably one of the most rewarding conversations we've had. cleared up pretty much all of our issues, and we don't argue that much to begin with (which our friends find disconcerting to say the least.) i hope the crack about the cast irritating urine from your bladder was purely metaphorical, as drying pee would only add to the itchyness.

Let me see if I have this correctly.

Under your concept, no nation should be able to do anything unless the rest of the world agrees with it and gives it permission.

Right.

Unilateral action is taken by any nation when the rest of the world doesn't agree with it.

We asked - and some even came along (The UK for instance).

Is invading Iraq then unilateral? Or is the UK not a country?When more than 90% of the world is against a war, it means that you shouldn't do it.
Especially when it is against the law and when more than 22 million lives are at sake.

19, that's how! and generally fantastic. talked with my gf for about 4 hours last night, and it was probably one of the most rewarding conversations we've had. cleared up pretty much all of our issues, and we don't argue that much to begin with (which our friends find disconcerting to say the least.) i hope the crack about the cast irritating urine from your bladder was purely metaphorical, as drying pee would only add to the itchyness.
LOL! Um .... nevermind! ;)

That's good news about you and your g/f. All those "issues" will change as the two of you get older. If you wind up getting married, the issues will change, the most common ones becoming finances, child-rearing and sex. If you start getting serious about getting married ( or some other sort of ling-term relationship ), I strongly recommend that you spend lots of time discussing those subjects. One of the most important things for a couple to do is be explicit about their goals to each other and learning to be very supporting toward each other's goals.

I believe the US administration has not yet admited the mistakes it did and continues to arrogantly and stubbornly insist in its unilateral path when most of them should be under investigation for war crimes or in jail at the moment.

So instead of even addressing the question of why you will not address any of the successes in the Middle East right now, you do exactly as I said and railed on about mistakes and war crimes and jail, why is that?

What "mistakes it did" are you referring to?

What "War Crimes" do you believe they are guilty of?

Who should be in jail and for what "specific" reason? You know, like "Perjury", lying under Oath in a Court of Law... Oh wait, we don't put Presidents in jail for that, right!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

When more than 90% of the world is against a war, it means that you shouldn't do it.
Especially when it is against the law and when more than 22 million lives are at sake.

We killed 22 million people?

What law? Who will enforce it?

I didn't know there was a world government. And where do you get 90 percent?

Can you show me a poll that says that 90 percent of the world's population was against the war?

LOL! Um .... nevermind! ;)

That's good news about you and your g/f. All those "issues" will change as the two of you get older. If you wind up getting married, the issues will change, the most common ones becoming finances, child-rearing and sex. I you start getting serious about getting married ( or some other sort of ling-term relationship ), I strongly recommend that you spend lots of time discussing those subjects. One of the most important things for a couple to do is be explicit about their goals to each other and learning to be very supporting toward each other's goals.
we're quite clear on each others goals. by happy chance they mirror each other nicely.

we're quite clear on each others goals. by happy chance they mirror each other nicely.
That's great, dude! It puts you miles ahead of most others. :)

When more than 90% of the world is against a war, it means that you shouldn't do it.
Especially when it is against the law and when more than 22 million lives are at sake.

Again, LINK PLEASE!

You cite such things as if we are supposed to just believe it cause you say it...

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

There has been little change in opinion about the war in Iraq – except in Great Britain, where support for the decision to go to war has plummeted from 61% last May to 43% in the current survey. In contrast, 60% of Americans continue to back the war...

Nevertheless, support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism has increased dramatically among Russians, despite their generally critical opinion of U.S. policies. More than seven-in-ten Russians (73%) currently back the war on terrorism, up from 51% last May. Since the end of the Iraq war, there also have been gains in support for the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign in Turkey (from 22% to 37%) and Morocco (9% to 28%). On the other hand, backing for the war against terrorism has again slipped in France and Germany; only about half of the public in each country favors the U.S.-led effort.
_____________________________

Hmmmm...

That doesn't look like 90% to me!

Find those links yet?

Regards,
Gaar

i believe that any hatred is wrong. hatred leads only to evil, such as hatred towards america breeding terrorism. but also, hatred towards terrorists breeds more terrorists, because you make all the falsehoods about america seem true. now, i am an american, i love my country and am willing to give my life to it freely. this doesn't mean i approve of war. if we were truly enlightened, we would find a way to win without violence. such is not the case, however. i do believe that bush has lied to the american public, and placed us on a path better not trodden. i believe that societies, even those in totalitarian religious countries, will reform their government when they have had enough. as the only superpower, we must be that beacon of light, so that others will see it and rise and fight ofr change. that will never happen as long as our hatred fuels their hatred, and vice versa. that is my say. take it for what you will, but do not let hatred fill your heart. it only corrupts the soul, even those of pure heart.

Peace be with you.

Russians are attacked on here, too.

I thought I'd just say that to throw a twist on the thread. I don't like the way it's going it's too serious after last night. :p

*snip*

So how long do you "threaten action" before you follow through?

Here's a scenario for you Mister Peacemaker (please bear with me, as it was written before the War started), please explain how YOU would react in this instance if YOU were the "Peacenick" in question?...

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

So instead of even addressing the question of why you will not address any of the successes in the Middle East right now, you do exactly as I said and railed on about mistakes and war crimes and jail, why is that?

What "mistakes it did" are you referring to?

What "War Crimes" do you believe they are guilty of?

Who should be in jail and for what "specific" reason? You know, like "Perjury", lying under Oath in a Court of Law... Oh wait, we don't put Presidents in jail for that, right!?!?

Regards,
Gaar
This has been done to death.
More than 100 000 people are dead and unfortunatelly more are to come.

That's great, dude! It puts you miles ahead of most others. :)
:D

We killed 22 million people?No

What law? Who will enforce it? International law. Nobody.

I didn't know there was a world government.There isn'tAnd where do you get 90 percent?

Can you show me a poll that says that 90 percent of the world's population was against the war?
there has been no such poll. I'm basing this out of the protests I've seen everywhere.

Nevertheless, support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism has increased dramatically among Russians, despite their generally critical opinion of U.S. policies. More than seven-in-ten Russians (73%) currently back the war on terrorism, up from 51% last May. Since the end of the Iraq war, there also have been gains in support for the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign in Turkey (from 22% to 37%) and Morocco (9% to 28%). On the other hand, backing for the war against terrorism has again slipped in France and Germany; only about half of the public in each country favors the U.S.-led effort.

You confuse the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq.

Again, LINK PLEASE!

Nevertheless, support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism has increased dramatically among Russians, despite their generally critical opinion of U.S. policies. More than seven-in-ten Russians (73%) currently back the war on terrorism, up from 51% last May.
Find those links yet?
I trust this is from the PEW study? When I first saw it, I found the wording a bit odd in it, don't you? I mean, I don't doubt for a second the Russians don't back the war on terrorism... but that they are supporting the U.S. -led war on terror is harder to believe.

You get what I mean? No wonder it's up from last may either, considering the school siege last september.

In no way am I saying that those figures are wrong, mind you. Just that one wording sounds funky...

i believe that any hatred is wrong. hatred leads only to evil, such as hatred towards america breeding terrorism. but also, hatred towards terrorists breeds more terrorists, because you make all the falsehoods about america seem true. now, i am an american, i love my country and am willing to give my life to it freely. this doesn't mean i approve of war. if we were truly enlightened, we would find a way to win without violence. such is not the case, however. i do believe that bush has lied to the american public, and placed us on a path better not trodden. i believe that societies, even those in totalitarian religious countries, will reform their government when they have had enough. as the only superpower, we must be that beacon of light, so that others will see it and rise and fight ofr change. that will never happen as long as our hatred fuels their hatred, and vice versa. that is my say. take it for what you will, but do not let hatred fill your heart. it only corrupts the soul, even those of pure heart.

Peace be with you.
Excellent post!! :)

You confuse the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq.

And again, YOU confuse YOUR OPINION with FACTS.

Either provide a few links to support your "wild assed" ASSERTIONS or LIVE with MINE!

:D

Regards,
Gaar

So how long do you "threaten action" before you follow through?

Here's a scenario for you Mister Peacemaker (please bear with me, as it was written before the War started), please explain how YOU would react in this instance if YOU were the "Peacenick" in question?...

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

No, they would just report you to the police. In global terms, the UN, although I know that the UN is not really able to do much at the moment. But the way to solve that is to make the UN stronger, not to go to war against it's will, therby weakening its position.
Also, if someone hit you, would you go and hit the person's friends, and people who you thought might try to hit you in the future?

And again, YOU confuse YOUR OPINION with FACTS.

Either provide a few links to support your "wild assed" ASSERTIONS or LIVE with MINE!

:D

Regards,
GaarTell me you believe the world supports the war with Iraq.

I trust this is from the PEW study? When I first saw it, I found the wording a bit odd in it, don't you? I mean, I don't doubt for a second the Russians don't back the war on terrorism... but that they are supporting the U.S. -led war on terror is harder to believe.

You get what I mean? No wonder it's up from last may either, considering the school siege last september.

In no way am I saying that those figures are wrong, mind you. Just that one wording sounds funky...

It's not so hard to believe that the Russians are supporting it now when you realise that a lot of the world publicly condemned the Russian policies in Chechenya for quite some time. Now that they've joined the "War on Terror" they're pretty much allowed to get on with it as they've managed to call it all an anti-terror campaign.

International law, historically, is only effective when enforced. Most Western nations, have, at one time or another, ignored the Hague Conventions in part or in whole, for example.

As for 90 percent, you're pulling that number out of your ass.

International law, historically, is only effective when enforced. Most Western nations, have, at one time or another, ignored the Hague Conventions in part or in whole, for example.

As for 90 percent, you're pulling that number out of your ass.

the UN was enforcing the international law that Iraq was breaking, and the US invaded Iraq anyway. The UN was not enforcing the international law that Israel is still breaking, but the US doesn't invade. Why?

International law, historically, is only effective when enforced. Most Western nations, have, at one time or another, ignored the Hague Conventions in part or in whole, for example.
Indeed international law is only effective when it is used.
The same way as if I breack into your house and steal your TV, the law is not effective if I don't use it.
Now I ask you how you feel after your TV is gone? I tell you it is because that law is not effective, not because of me.

As for 90 percent, you're pulling that number out of your ass.Indeed, it may as well be 95% or 85%. It was just a way to put it (it refers to "a vast majority").

It's not so hard to believe that the Russians are supporting it now when you realise that a lot of the world publicly condemned the Russian policies in Chechenya for quite some time. Now that they've joined the "War on Terror" they're pretty much allowed to get on with it as they've managed to call it all an anti-terror campaign.
Thank you. That's what I was after. I was just wondering if it's so much the American -led campaign they are supporting.

Thank you. That's what I was after. I was just wondering, if it's so much the American -led campaign they are supporting.

No, just justification and tacit support for their own warmongering. Everybody lets them get on with it, so that they cause less of a fuss about our own governments campaigns.

Thank you. That's what I was after. I was just wondering if it's so much the American -led campaign they are supporting.

The question being asked was...

“Which of the following phrases comes closer to your view? I favor
the US-led efforts to fight terrorism, or I oppose the US-led efforts to fight terrorism.”

the UN was enforcing the international law that Iraq was breaking, and the US invaded Iraq anyway. The UN was not enforcing the international law that Israel is still breaking, but the US doesn't invade. Why?

Realpolitik.

The number one reason why the UN is completely ineffective at preventing war, stopping genocide, or maintaining peace. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)

The number one reason why other nations don't get together and form their own organization to enforce international law against the US. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)

No one wants to spend the money or the time, or sacrifice anything (troops, money, time, etc) to stop the US. Hey, the US is only doing what the Europeans have been whining about for the past 40 years (please, Uncle Sam, please clean up the Middle East that we screwed up completely).

So, now that we're cleaning house (our way), you're getting upset that we're taking out the trash - and throwing out some of the things you were hiding under the bed (like weapons deals for Saddam, and Oil For Food (which was really Money For Europeans Who Deal Under The Table).

The question being asked was...

“Which of the following phrases comes closer to your view? I favor
the US-led efforts to fight terrorism, or I oppose the US-led efforts to fight terrorism.”
Nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

The question being asked was...

“Which of the following phrases comes closer to your view? I favor
the US-led efforts to fight terrorism, or I oppose the US-led efforts to fight terrorism.”
Right. It's all about the question asked. Polls are like that.

Realpolitik.

The number one reason why the UN is completely ineffective at preventing war, stopping genocide, or maintaining peace. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)

The number one reason why other nations don't get together and form their own organization to enforce international law against the US. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)

No one wants to spend the money or the time, or sacrifice anything (troops, money, time, etc) to stop the US. Hey, the US is only doing what the Europeans have been whining about for the past 40 years (please, Uncle Sam, please clean up the Middle East that we screwed up completely).

So, now that we're cleaning house (our way), you're getting upset that we're taking out the trash - and throwing out some of the things you were hiding under the bed (like weapons deals for Saddam, and Oil For Food (which was really Money For Europeans Who Deal Under The Table).

Well said. Amen to that.

So, now that we're cleaning house (our way)
That is a really nice way to put it. Do you clean your house with TNT?
Secondly, is your house located 20 000 km away from where you live?

The number one reason why other nations don't get together and form their own organization to enforce international law against the US. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)What are you thinking about? Something like Al Qaeda? Are you suggesting that people here attack america or americans?

Realpolitik.

The number one reason why the UN is completely ineffective at preventing war, stopping genocide, or maintaining peace. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)

The number one reason why other nations don't get together and form their own organization to enforce international law against the US. (because every nation is really in it for themselves, not some high minded international law reason)

It is impossible to enforce international law against the US.


No one wants to spend the money or the time, or sacrifice anything (troops, money, time, etc) to stop the US. Hey, the US is only doing what the Europeans have been whining about for the past 40 years (please, Uncle Sam, please clean up the Middle East that we screwed up completely).

I think what Europe has been saying is "Please, Uncle Sam, stop selling weapons to both sides in the Iran/Iraq War, and stop sending huge stacks of money to Israel, because it is in breach of UN regulations, and can you stop supporting Saudi Arabia, because it is a fascist state, and hey, curiously, arab states without oil in them like tunisia and morocco seem to get on fine."


So, now that we're cleaning house (our way), you're getting upset that we're taking out the trash - and throwing out some of the things you were hiding under the bed (like weapons deals for Saddam, and Oil For Food (which was really Money For Europeans Who Deal Under The Table).

Weapons deals for Saddam, wasn't that the US that equipped Iraq? Actually? And what you're throwing out is *the rule of law* and *some kids that are in the way, and their moms*

It is impossible to enforce international law against the US.

Only because the rest of the world doesn't have the balls to try.

stop sending huge stacks of money to Israel, because it is in breach of UN regulations

Sending money to Israel isn't in violation of any UN resolution. Sorry.
Weapons deals for Saddam, wasn't that the US that equipped Iraq? Actually?

Let's see. Every rifle in Iraq came from Russia or China. AK-47, you know (actually AKM). Every rocket propelled grenade - same place. Most artillery from Russia, with some from South Africa (the R7). All tanks and armored personnel carriers from Russia. All aircraft (except the Mirages) from Russia. Mirage fighters from France. SAMs from Russia and China. Air defense radars from France. Air defense networking software and fiber optic hardware from China.

See any American weapons? Aircraft? Tanks? Rifles? Hells bells, even Saddam's personal private handgun collection was Glocks and SIGs - European handguns.

Care to try again?

the UN was enforcing the international law that Iraq was breaking, and the US invaded Iraq anyway.

Really?!?! So Iraq was allowing full access to UN Nuke Inspectors?

http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/iraq-timeline.htm

The UN was not enforcing the international law that Israel is still breaking, but the US doesn't invade. Why?

Now perhaps you could show me which UN Resolutions Israel is currently in non-compliance with and what, if any, the repurcussions are supposed to be if they do not comply, in order to justify an invasion?

Regards,
Gaar

Care to try again?

Are you denying that America set saddam up in the first place and then financed him and helped him with intelligience for quite a number of years?

Just because they allowed him to spend money on weapons from another country means nothing if they set him up in the first place.

Only because the rest of the world doesn't have the balls to try.Because if the rest of the world nuked the US they would breack the law. What we can do is boycott US products and whine. And answer to stupid questions like "why don't you like the US administration?" because some people are slow and don't get it.

Sending money to Israel isn't in violation of any UN resolution. Sorry.
"it" refers to Israel.

Contrary to a lot of people's beliefs, neither Americans, nor Europeans are any more stupid or ignorant than one another.

Only because the rest of the world doesn't have the balls to try.

LOL! There's a difference between being a coward and being smart. Plus, if America were somehow magically eliminated (the Rapture?), who would take their place as world police? China? F_ck that!

I may disagree with some of the U.S.A.'s foreign policies, but they're a damn sight better than a brutal and corrupt dictatorship.

Are you denying that America set saddam up in the first place and then financed him and helped him with intelligience for quite a number of years?

Just because they allowed him to spend money on weapons from another country means nothing if they set him up in the first place.

Hmm. After the first Gulf War, we didn't finance him. We didn't help him with intelligence. And we didn't sell him weapons during that time. Embargo, you know. Official UN stuff. Sanctions and all that.

But, the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese (who all conveniently got money from Oil for Food, and got money from secret weapons deals all through the 1990s) financed him, helped him with intelligence, and sold him weapons. Oh, and they also were against UN action against Iraq. Big surprise there - that would have meant cancelling billions in contracts.

Of course, fat lot of good all that advanced equipment did Iraq. Made nice targets, though. Best equipment in the world outside of the United States turned into scrap in two weeks.

Of course, fat lot of good all that advanced equipment did Iraq. Made nice targets, though. Best equipment in the world outside of the United States turned into scrap in two weeks.I knew you would not loose this opportunity to tell us how big the tanks are in the US. Too bad there is no brain available to control those big tanks.

Hmm. After the first Gulf War, we didn't finance him. We didn't help him with intelligence. And we didn't sell him weapons during that time. Embargo, you know. Official UN stuff. Sanctions and all that.

But, the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese (who all conveniently got money from Oil for Food, and got money from secret weapons deals all through the 1990s) financed him, helped him with intelligence, and sold him weapons. Oh, and they also were against UN action against Iraq. Big surprise there - that would have meant cancelling billions in contracts.

Of course, fat lot of good all that advanced equipment did Iraq. Made nice targets, though. Best equipment in the world outside of the United States turned into scrap in two weeks.
It was mainly companies who benefitted from the Oil-For-Food program - and the U.S. also had it's share of corporations who had secret deals with Iraq or who benefitted from Oil-For-Food (i.e. Halliburton)

I knew you would not loose this opportunity to tell us how big the tanks are in the US. Too bad there is no brain available to control those big tanks.
If you think Iraq had good equipment, then could you please back that up with facts?

Hmm. After the first Gulf War, we didn't finance him. We didn't help him with intelligence. And we didn't sell him weapons during that time. Embargo, you know. Official UN stuff. Sanctions and all that.



But you did set him up in the first place and the majority of those weapons that he bought and you were discussing earlier were bought when the US was holding his hand.

That you stopped after the first Gulf war is neither here nor there.

I knew you would not loose this opportunity to tell us how big the tanks are in the US. Too bad there is no brain available to control those big tanks.

You didn't lose the ability to be upset about the fact that nothing in the world can stop the US military.

And only because no one in Europe is willing to part with the extended vacations and social services. You see, you would have to spend that money on decades of research and development, and then buy a lot of military equipment, and then get some people with the balls and brains to use it.

Of course, no one in Europe is interested, so go ahead - sit back in your vacation camp and enjoy the show on CNN.

Ein Deutscher']If you think Iraq had good equipment, then could you please back that up with facts?
I don't think Iraq had good equipment.

Ein Deutscher']It was mainly companies who benefitted from the Oil-For-Food program - and the U.S. also had it's share of corporations who had secret deals with Iraq or who benefitted from Oil-For-Food (i.e. Halliburton)

You ask for facts, yet supply none for your own assertions.

Why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

You didn't lose the ability to be upset about the fact that nothing in the world can stop the US military.

And only because no one in Europe is willing to part with the extended vacations and social services. You see, you would have to spend that money on decades of research and development, and then buy a lot of military equipment, and then get some people with the balls and brains to use it.

Of course, no one in Europe is interested, so go ahead - sit back in your vacation camp and enjoy the show on CNN.Arm race? No thank you. You are the fastest and the strongest, congratulations.
I think my government already spends a hell lot far too much on such dangerous hardware for nothing but to threaten world peace and to rape Africa.

That is a really nice way to put it. Do you clean your house with TNT?
Secondly, is your house located 20 000 km away from where you live?
There are very few problems which cannot be quickly resolved with 500 pounds of C-4 and a thousand feet of detchord. :D

I don't think Iraq had good equipment.
Iraq had T-72 and T-80 tanks. Each mounts the 125mm Rapira main gun - which can fire the AT-8 Spandrel and the regular armor piercing ammunition. Probably the best main gun on any tank in the world.

They had Mig-25, Mig-29 fighters and Mirage F-1 fighters.

They had the most dense concentration of late model Russian air defense missiles in the world - all interconnected with the latest French air defense radars and a Chinese air defense network based on fiber optic networking. Thus, an active radar would not give away a launcher.

The Russians gave Iraq thousands of GPS jammers before this last war, in the hopes that it would stop the GPS guided bombs.

Unfortunately, the US bombs will home in on a GPS jammer if they detect one. Bad idea!

Additionally, the US and UK forces that invaded Iraq were SMALLER than the total number of active Iraqi forces defending the country. You read that right - fewer attackers than defenders.

There are very few problems which cannot be quickly resolved with 500 pounds of C-4 and a thousand feet of detchord. :D
BTW I have my own cleaning service. Please don't come to clean up my house.Thanks in advance.

There are very few problems which cannot be quickly resolved with 500 pounds of C-4 and a thousand feet of detchord.

Think about it this way, you take a math test, one of the questions is very hard, instead of answering it, you use white-out and remove it. Have you solved the problem?

Iraq's army was well equipped prior to the First Gulf War, what they were not was well-organised or discipined. The Republican Guard were the only ones who hung around, the rest of the military surrendered pretty quickly. I heard something about a British soldier capturing a force of about 100 Iraqis with a pistol and a tractor.

It's also worth noting that the U.S. military is currently the most powerful and technologically advanced in the world, so kicking the crap out of a tin-pot dictatorship is hardly a major effort.

...
That is impressive. I wonder how much starving people we could have feed with all the money wasted on such useless hardware.

BTW I have my own cleaning service. Please don't come to clean up my house.Thanks in advance.
LOL! A dirty house isn't a "problem," just a minor irritant. :)

Arm race? No thank you. You are the fastest and the strongest, congratulations.

Must be nice to not have to worry about China nuking or invading you, while at the same time not having to supply any of the deterrents from your own coffers.

Congratulations, you are able to complain about that which affords you the Freedom to do just that! Not sure if China would "allow" such things if they were a "sole Superpower" in the World right now...

But hey, I could be wrong… I am just not all that willing to find out.

Regards,
Gaar

Iraq's army was well equipped prior to the First Gulf War, what they were not was well-organised or discipined. The Republican Guard were the only ones who hung around, the rest of the military surrendered pretty quickly. I heard something about a British soldier capturing a force of about 100 Iraqis with a pistol and a tractor.

It's also worth noting that the U.S. military is currently the most powerful and technologically advanced in the world, so kicking the crap out of a tin-pot dictatorship is hardly a major effort.
Cleaning a house with TNT is quite easy indeed. The result is not as good as with the good old brushes but it is quite easier.

You ask for facts, yet supply none for your own assertions.

Why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

US companies were at it as well

follow this link (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11569)

and even involved outside of the oil for food programme too, eg: Odin Marine from Stamford, Conneticut and your own treasury department:

linky linky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30725-2005Feb16.html)

That is impressive. I wonder how much starving people we could have feed with all the money wasted on such useless hardware.
Yes, and consider that it was all bought from France, Russia, China, and Germany with money from the Oil for Food program (which people use to blame the US for starving Iraqis - when it was Saddam in conjunction with those countries that was starving the Iraqis and depriving the Iraqi children of medicine). During a time when there were UN sanctions against selling weapons to Saddam.

Notice that the US didn't sell him any arms. So you probably could have saved a lot of Iraqi lives instead of wasting money on all that hardware.

The Republican Guard were the only ones who hung around, the rest of the military surrendered pretty quickly. I heard something about a British soldier capturing a force of about 100 Iraqis with a pistol and a tractor.


Hell, I remember reports that stated Iraqi Troops were surrendering to unarmed Reporters!

Which makes me believe they may have had the French training their Troops... :p

Regards,
Gaar

Must be nice to not have to worry about China nuking or invading you, while at the same time not having to supply any of the deterrents from your own coffers.

Congratulations, you are able to complain about that which affords you the Freedom to do just that! Not sure if China would "allow" such things if they were a "sole Superpower" in the World right now...

But hey, I could be wrong… I am just not all that willing to find out.

Regards,
GaarMaybe my own country would afford me more freedom if they had more weapons?
I want those weapons then!

Cleaning a house with TNT is quite easy indeed. The result is not as good as with the good old brushes but it is quite easier.
Oh, you mean something along the lines of "the operation was a success, but the patient died?"

Maybe my own country would afford me more freedom if they had more weapons?
I want those weapons then!

I hear you cry about the US wasting money on weapons, but when I point out that Saddam wasted money on European and Chinese weapons, you don't say a thing...

Notice that the US didn't sell him any arms. So you probably could have saved a lot of Iraqi lives instead of wasting money on all that hardware.


The US was very much involved in arms sales to Iraq:

Check what 60 minutes and the house of representatives had to say. (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html)

Yes, and consider that it was all bought from France, Russia, China, and Germany with money from the Oil for Food program (which people use to blame the US for starving Iraqis - when it was Saddam in conjunction with those countries that was starving the Iraqis and depriving the Iraqi children of medicine). During a time when there were UN sanctions against selling weapons to Saddam.

Notice that the US didn't sell him any arms. So you probably could have saved a lot of Iraqi lives instead of wasting money on all that hardware.Don't use them as a diversion. The US administration still wasted more than 100 000 lives in this operation. They still should face the court.

The US was very much involved in arms sales to Iraq:

Check what 60 minutes and the house of representatives had to say. (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html)

If you read that, you will note that was prior to the First Gulf War, not the most recent one.

You'll have to do better than that.

I hear you cry about the US wasting money on weapons, but when I point out that Saddam wasted money on European and Chinese weapons, you don't say a thing...
OK I'll say it for you. Saddam is a freaky pussy dictator who should face the court. Too bad he can't read english.
Note there is no Saddam supporter here either.

If you read that, you will note that was prior to the First Gulf War, not the most recent one.

You'll have to do better than that.
if you paid any attention to my posts you'd realise that it is still relevant, you created the monster and then try to deny it...

Don't use them as a diversion. The US administration still wasted more than 100 000 lives in this operation. They still should face the court.

Show me:

1. proof positive (not an estimate) that 100,000 died as a direct result of US action
2. that none of those people killed were members of the Iraqi military
3. that none of those people killed were members of any insurgency

Give me links to proof positive - not estimates.

If you can do that, show me the exact international law that was violated.

Then show me proof positive that the law itself was violated.

Show me:

1. proof positive (not an estimate) that 100,000 died as a direct result of US action
2. that none of those people killed were members of the Iraqi military
3. that none of those people killed were members of any insurgency

Give me links to proof positive - not estimates.

If you can do that, show me the exact international law that was violated.

Then show me proof positive that the law itself was violated.
First off, most died indirectly.
Second off, many were member of the iraqi military.
Third off, most civilians were killed by insurgents.
If you want proofs from me, ask for proofs of something which did happen, or make you own faked ones.

The international law was the UN chapter, article 5, if my memory is correct. The one which says that no country should invade any other country without prior Security council approval or when directly attacked by the said country.

First off, most died indirectly.
Second off, many were member of the iraqi military.
Third off, most civilians were killed by insurgents.
If you want proofs from me, ask for proofs of something which did happen, or make you own faked ones.

There isn't any proof that 100,000 people died. The Lancet only has estimated.

The number of actual Iraqis killed is less than 20,000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

The US is perfectly entitled to kill members of an enemy armed force. Under international law. So subtract all of those.

Also subtract all insurgents killed, because those are legal also.

Then subtract all civilians killed by insurgents bombs (those are not the fault of the United States).

I bet you're left with a really small number. I don't have to fake numbers - you're the one making the assertion by pulling a number out of your ass.

You also can't prosecute anyone for numbers of people you pulled out of your ass.

And I see no international law - you still have to provide chapter and verse on the exact law that was violated.

Obviously, there isn't one that the world cares about - otherwise, they would have gotten together and stopped the US. I don't see anyone trying, do you? In fact, I see NATO members agreeing to help with the Iraqi occupation - even if that means only sending money (like France has agreed).

So I guess there isn't a violation, is there?

...
Check the UN charter. The whole war was illegal (also check my previous edited post).

Check the UN charter. The whole war was illegal (also check my previous edited post).
I don't see any punishment listed in the Charter.

Also, I don't see where this law has been applied before.

Say, against Egypt in October 1973.

No?

Against the Soviet Union in the early 1980s for invading Afghanistan? No?

What a joke!

even worse - I don't see a Security Council resolution admonishing the US!

I don't see any punishment listed in the Charter.There is none.

Also, I don't see where this law has been applied before.

Say, against Egypt in October 1973.

No?

Against the Soviet Union in the early 1980s for invading Afghanistan? No?

What a joke!It has been continuously applied everytime a nation has not invaded another nation.

There is none.
It has been continuously applied everytime a nation has not invaded another nation.

Can you show me where it was applied? And who was punished?

even worse - I don't see a Security Council resolution admonishing the US!
There is none. Note the US has a veto power in the SC.
Still it doesn't make this act any more legal.
Still more than 100 000 people lives have been wasted.

Can you show me where it was applied? And who was punished?
It was applied yesterday when Belgium didn't invade France. No one was punished.

There is none. Note the US has a veto power in the SC.
Still it doesn't make this act any more legal.
Still more than 100 000 people lives have been wasted.

You can't say 100,000 without proof. Why don't you say 1 billion? It's just as good a number to pull out of your ass.

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

I'm sure military wet dreams aren't a major cause of Anti-Americanism in the world. In fact, I don't think many people in Europe really care about the military any more. We're sick of wars over here. We'd rather drink tea and talk about the weather, thank you. The only reason we make weapons at all is so we can sell them to tinpot dictators.

It was applied yesterday when Belgium didn't invade France. No one was punished.

That's not an example of the violation of the "law".

In fact, you'll read your history books now and note that no one was held accountable for violating the UN Charter on invading another country with one exception:

North Korea.

Resolution 90.

And which country had the idea of enforcing the Charter? Yes, that's right - the United States.

Since then, no country has ever wanted to enforce the Charter. And they still don't. So it's a worthless rag.

You can't say 100,000 without proof. Why don't you say 1 billion? It's just as good a number to pull out of your ass.
I said more than 100 000. I'm pretty condifent my number is accurate. If it was 1 billion it would be more than 100 000. I don't think it was 1 billion though. More like 200 000-300 000.

Check the UN charter. The whole war was illegal (also check my previous edited post).
No country on the face of the planet is going to ask anyone else's permission before launcing an attack against its enemies. Too bad we can't make all wars "illegal," but then you have the problem of who's going to enforce this law and how.

...
Like if I breack into your house without getting caught, property laws are worthless?
Read the republic from Plato. He explains why you should obey the law.

No country on the face of the planet is going to ask anyone else's permission before launcing an attack against its enemies. Too bad we can't make all wars "illegal," but then you have the problem of who's going to enforce this law and how.
Yes that is a problem indeed.

I said more than 100 000. I'm pretty condifent my number is accurate. If it was 1 billion it would be more than 100 000. I don't think it was 1 billion though. More like 200 000-300 000.

You don't have any proof of this.

Like if I breack into your house without getting caught, property laws are worthless?
Read the republic from Plato. He explains why you should obey the law.

Worthless if
a) no one is capable of defending the house and
b) no one upholds the law

No one is upholding the law, are they?

First off, most died indirectly.
Second off, many were member of the iraqi military.
Third off, most civilians were killed by insurgents.
If you want proofs from me, ask for proofs of something which did happen, or make you own faked ones.

The international law was the UN chapter, article 5, if my memory is correct. The one which says that no country should invade any other country without prior Security council approval or when directly attacked by the said country.

listen, we don't care what tinpot dictatorships and corrupt people like Chirac think. We don't care about a stupid international law that basically says we cannot defend ourselves when Chirac and Schroeder are bribed by Saddam to block any resolution.

Tough shit, deal with it.

It was applied yesterday when Belgium didn't invade France. No one was punished.
We didn't? :confused:

listen, we don't care what tinpot dictatorships and corrupt people like Chirac think. We don't care about a stupid international law that basically says we cannot defend ourselves when Chirac and Schroeder are bribed by Saddam to block any resolution.

Tough shit, deal with it.
well see? thats why americans are considered arrogant and ignorant.

You say that you don't usually reply to your own posts, yet this according to what I see is your FIRST post. :eek:

If you have posted here before under another nation, why would you feel it necessary to get a "puppet" nation to do your dirty work? I refer you to your credibility "clause" below.

About the credibility thing? Have you personally been a victim of a terrorist act on the level of 9/11? I also don't appreciate you suggesting that my credibility would hinge on your requirements.

Ahhh nothing worse than a "vicious circle of stupidity"? Remember, if that happens, that you are the one that kicked it off.

Also, I notice you parroting basically what Eutrusca stated in his opening post..."People will tell me to move on." in regards to 9/11, well the funny thing about that is that he was sharing his "personal" experiences, and yet you have the same experience? That is interesting because I for one have not seen that posted here EVER.


You are correct, that was my first post. However, I discuss this issue elsewhere...I have other places I discuss current issues. The fact of the matter is, the same thing happens every place. For instance, one of the most common things that happens is that I get attacked personally for things that have nothing to do with what I am speaking of, such as how many posts that I have on a certain discussion board. That's funny! I didn't realize you had to have a certain number of posts before you became credible. Does that mean that there's point when you become a blowhard? 3,000 or more, maybe? It's kind of funny...my requirements of your credibility don't matter...by your requirements of mine do, i.e. the number of posts I have. This is what I am talking about when I say vicious circle of stupidity. Let's talk about the Iraq war...not my personal information.

I have no need to create a puppet nation. Basically my point was simply that you can't (or choose not to) understand my frustration with the idea that people question my motives for this war when they have not had a 9/11 happen to them in their own country. I suppose that I can take some constructive criticism in that I did not take into account the histories of some countries and things that have happened in their past...however, most people don't come at me with facts, they just hit me with a "you're wrong" or "America sucks."

Have I been directly affected by terrorism? Yes, I have. I had a relative that was driving to work and had a piece of debris from the World Trade Center fly through his windshield and dent his skull in. He was killed instantly. But, I don't think of just that. The point was made to me at one point that Iraq may not have been connected with 9/11. That made me wonder why I supported the war in Iraq. I did some soul searching. The point is valid. After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that I don't ever want any terrorist country to have the opportunity to carry something like that out again. And, yes, and I do mean on anyone...not just the United States of America (as everyone demands we call it for some reason). Here is the part where most people say, "But you aren't the world police."

Interesting. People mention the atrocities at Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghreib. People demand the removal of Donald Rumsfeld because he supposedly ordered those atrocities carried out; it negates his credibility to the position he holds. The funny thing is...we removed a ruthless dictator that, in my opinion, carried out far worse atrocities: rape rooms, mass graves, and the testing of war gasses on his own people. So then I have to compare the two. Atrocities make it so that you can't hold office...then why are people so ticked we got rid of Saddam?! If Rumsfeld's atrocities, as they are called, justify him being removed from office, Saddam's should as well.

I'm a puppet and a parrot, eh? Kind of interesting...I have discussed this issue elsewhere, and basically predicted the answers I would receive. (No, I didn't post them here.) And...well, to be honest, the post you made was the same thing I have heard before...

I guess, supposing I am actually guilty of being a parrot, both of us need to add a "SQUAAAWWWWK!" to our posts.

Interesting. People mention the atrocities at Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghreib. People demand the removal of Donald Rumsfeld because he supposedly ordered those atrocities carried out; it negates his credibility to the position he holds. The funny thing is...we removed a ruthless dictator that, in my opinion, carried out far worse atrocities: rape rooms, mass graves, and the testing of war gasses on his own people. So then I have to compare the two. Atrocities make it so that you can't hold office...then why are people so ticked we got rid of Saddam?! If Rumsfeld's atrocities, as they are called, justify him being removed from office, Saddam's should as well.

the difference, at least for me, is that Rummy is our problem and Saddam was not. we are responsible for the leaders of our nation, and we the people must ensure that those who represent us are truly representing what we believe. Saddam Hussein, however horrible he was, was not ours to remove; Rumsfeld is. there are other dictators and governments committing attrocities at least as horrendous as Hussein's, but America is not the designated parent of the world, and it is not our responsibility to remake the world in our image. perhaps helping to reshape a better world is a noble goal for our future, but at present we have enough problems in our own nation to keep us busy for some time...if we cannot deal with the torturers in our midst, how dare we pressume to bring "justice" to other nations?

I realize that many of the rabid anti-Americans on here are going to post enlightening things like: "'Cause Americans are stupid!" or "'Cause you keep attacking other countries!" or "'Cause American soldiers are all trigger-happy!" or similar strangeness. But I, for one, have been pondering just why so many of the posters on here truly seem to hate America and Americans.

Here are some of the reasons I believe there are so many on here who post knee-jerk anti-Americanism:

1. We make a good target. Anyone on top in any field of endeavour is automatically highly visible. Attacking them is easy and fun for those with lesser achievements.

2. Differing opinions on the response to 9/11. 9/11 was a wake-up call for America. It was seen as an unwarranted attack on innocent civilians and totally unprovoked. Traditionally, America is quick to respond to this sort of thing ( see Pearl Harbor ). Many who post on here apparently agree with the position presented to me by a foreign national almost immediately after 9/11: "Just forget it and move on." This is not the way America responds to attacks on its civilians on its own soil.

3. Envy. Many of the anti_american posters on here are from nations which have been superpowers in the past: Germany, France, Russia, even Great Britain. There is a degree of envy at the impact America and American actions have on their own countries at this point in time, witness the so-called "cultural imperialism" allegations. This is most often used by Germans ( who tried their damndest to conquer the entire world! ), and French ( who managed to reach Moscow before the weather decimated them ). Which is worse, taking over another country by force, or taking over a portion of another country's culture by offering good products and services at a reasonable price?

4. Resentment at having America presume to advocate a better form of government ( democracy ) for people who have been unable to attain it for themselves.

5. Fear that America is finally recognizing that its influence and power are capable of changing the world. I've noted that some on here who claim that America is trying to establish an empire seem to fear that, now that America is hitting her stride, their own country will be somehow "taken over." This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.

Another poster ( The Alma Mater ) referred me to an article about the current differences between how Americans view the world and how Europeans view the world. I highly recommend it, since it goes a long way toward explaining these differing world views: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"

1. True, but that's not why I - or many of the people that I know - dislike America.

2. So you respond to it by attcking Iraq, which couldn't target America and wasn't part of 9/11? That's a bit like getting angry because your boss sacked you, doing something to you boss, and then going after other bosses.

3. Normally envy would come from those who remember a time in which the opposite was so. I was not alive when Britain was a super-power, nor are many at all today. That doesn't quite work. I don't mind America's culture in Britain, I do mind it attacking countries that haven't caused it any harm.

4. Really? America is a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. And I'm fine with my nation's government type, I'm really not jealous of a democracy.

5. Yes, you are capable of changing the world, because you're the only real super-power at the moment. As such, you have the potential to do great or terrible things. Invading countries so as to forcefully impose democracy does, believe it or not, attract a certain amount of anger from many people affected. If there are any more Iraqs, the western world may well suffer more terrorism. This puts the UK at risk as well as the US.

6. The article concludes in basically saying that the US need not be constrained by Europe as it can do what it wants, and should do such to protect the modern world. If 'protecting the modern world' amounts to attacking something that poses no threat to you, then it's hardly protection, is it? In a modern world, not everything is done through war. 'Protecting the modern world' does not require invading other nations, posing a threat or not. There are other forms of diplomacy. But the views in this article state that Europe should build up its military (as if Europe is one big nation...it's not.) to help America protect 'the modern world'. Why? For a start, we're hardly under threat from invasion, more from terrorism, and you can't vanquish that by conquering a nation. All invading places might do is create more anger among terrorists. One thing that the article is right about is that the US seems 'mired in history'. Diplomacy in the real civilised world is not declaring war. Perhaps war gets things done easier, but it just creates even more to sort out. Diplomacy is 'negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements', and 'Tact and skill in dealing with people', 'subtly skillful handling of a situation' and 'wisdom in the management of public affairs'. Declaring war does not count for any of the above. Why should we build up a military for diplomacy - diplomacy as war has ended over here.

That was the best post Ive ever seen in my life.

I dont like George Bush mainly because of the way he leads. Maybe the haters of George Bush link him to America. It happens all the time where I come from

I feel that most people who dislike America have a slightly off center view of America. WE did not attack Iraq! Our government did so. Anyone who thinks democracy works in the US is misguided. Our government was to be " of the people, by the people, for the people" unfortunately it has become of the rich, for the rich and F*ck the people.

Funny Canuck, you have a lot of questions but always seem to ignore those asked of your side.
Nice way of avoiding my questions huh? Please direct me to the posts that I haven't answered. BTW, I noticed that you have posted over a hundred posts in the past few days. It is kind of difficult to keep up with that. I do have a life other than NS.

There has been plenty of things cited about why several European Nations just conveniently didn't "want" to fight a War in Iraq because of corruption within the UN, yet no one wants to address that, why is that?
Because the number 1 reason NOT to invade Iraq, was that the UN inspectors were in Iraq and guess what? They were NOT finding ANY WMD!! NONE. ZERO, NADA, ZIP. Yet Bush decided to attack anyways. This is the crux of the matter, not anything else. Canada was quite willing to join in IF Saddam was not complying, and so were the French. While the UN inspectors were asking for even more inspectors, the US was loading more bombs to get ready for the "Shock and Awe" show. Gotta keep those ratings up?

It also seems a bit weird that no one is giving ANY credit to the War in creating the current calls for Democracy in the Middle East, why is that?

Well, I shouldn't say no one, just the Liberals on this site it seems...
Ohh? I suppose liberals are somehow against "democracy"? Give us all a break and don't post that BS.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050306-110218-9266r.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1034732,00.html

http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/wordpress/?p=76

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2005/March/opinion_March16.xml&section=opinion&col=

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/40743.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/peterbrookes/pb20050307.shtml

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0304/p09s03-cods.html
Ahhh the feel good stories huh? By George he was right all along? I guess Bin Laden will turn himself in soon and the insurgents in Iraq will all lay down their weapons wrap the American flag around them and sing God Bless America?

You do realize that US military deaths in Iraq in Jan. 2005, was the 3rd highest total for a month since the war began? The highest month was Dec. 2004. Looks like things are turning around alright. Thank God for George W. Bush. :eek:

Cause they're communist, homosexual, pinko player-haters who can't stand the idea of freedom, faith, and financial success.

US companies were at it as well

follow this link (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11569)

and even involved outside of the oil for food programme too, eg: Odin Marine from Stamford, Conneticut and your own treasury department:

linky linky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30725-2005Feb16.html)
Maybe now that you have exposed the US part in the Oil For Food Scandal, Urantia II and others might be inclined to stop the finger pointing?

Maybe now that you have exposed the US part in the Oil For Food Scandal, Urantia II and others might be inclined to stop the finger pointing?

Somehow I doubt it, but I'd love to be proved wrong (it's not worked yet with any other relevant links that I've posted). This brings me back to the original point of the thread, whenever anybody who isn't from the US says anything that they disagree with or proves a point they either ignore it or just find another excuse to carry on doing what they want, hence people get upset and tell them they're arrogant etc...

Really?!?! So Iraq was allowing full access to UN Nuke Inspectors?

http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/iraq-timeline.htm

From the very source that you quote and is most notable:

March 7, 2003 - Deep divisions at the Security Council hardened following a Hans Blix report that Iraq is improving its cooperation. Blix says disarmament could be done in months.

Now perhaps you could show me which UN Resolutions Israel is currently in non-compliance with and what, if any, the repurcussions are supposed to be if they do not comply, in order to justify an invasion?

Israel has been in non-compliance of many UN Resolutions and you should note that the US vetoed many more Resolutions against Israel.

Somehow I doubt it, but I'd love to be proved wrong (it's not worked yet with any other relevant links that I've posted). This brings me back to the original point of the thread, whenever anybody who isn't from the US says anything that they disagree with or proves a point they either ignore it or just find another excuse to carry on doing what they want, hence people get upset and tell them they're arrogant etc...
You must keep in mind that they are in the minority. They don't speak for the majority of Americans. I still say the motivation of this thread was dishonest and self serving and so far from what I have read, this is true. Eustruca sits back and picks off the anti-American posts and appears to have no intention of trying to understand why people appear to be anti-America/American.

You presume to lecture me on the name of my own Country, a place in which I was born and have lived for over 61 years now, and then have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of being arrogant? :rolleyes:
Well, if you do know the name of your country, why not use it?
America is a continent you know, not a country, and there are several other countries contained within said continent. Look it up in an Atlas. It may surprise you.
And yes I think you're being very arrogant if you think that you can get away with saying America because you think that everyone in the World will immediately and by necessity think of one specific country within that continent, ignoring the rest.
You are showing your imperialist attitudes there. Your use of 'America' instead of 'USA' gives the implication that the USA is America and America is the USA, thereby implicitly belittling and relegating the other countries that are there.

Oh, good way to ignore my post too, btw. Focus on something totally minor and non-specific to the post. Well done.

In contrast, 60% of Americans continue to back the war...
Ummm your figures are a tad off (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html):

President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq war, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.........

The public splits down the middle on Bush's overall job performance, with 48 percent approving while 49 percent disapprove, percentages that closely approximate results taken just before the election. By contrast, President Bill Clinton had an approval of 60 percent in a poll taken just before he began his second term.

Cause they're communist, homosexual, pinko player-haters who can't stand the idea of freedom, faith, and financial success.

Because certain American generalise and assume that everyone wants to be like them.

You must keep in mind that they are in the minority. They don't speak for the majority of Americans. I still say the motivation of this thread was dishonest and self serving and so far from what I have read, this is true. Eustruca sits back and picks off the anti-American posts and appears to have no intention of trying to understand why people appear to be anti-America/American.
The 'motivation' of this thread was to offer my own opinions about why so many on here keep up this constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism. I so state right in the first post. If someone disagrees with my reasons and they present logic, reasoning and facts to back up their allegations, I give their post as much consideration as I give those who agree with me. If they have only their opinion to offer, it simply offsets my own and the two cancel each other out.

I'm not sure what you would have me do. Not respond to posts to which I would like to respond? Change my opinions based on nothing other than differing opinions from other posters? Simply shut the hell up and say nothing?

Well, if you do know the name of your country, why not use it?
America is a continent you know, not a country, and there are several other countries contained within said continent. Look it up in an Atlas. It may surprise you.
And yes I think you're being very arrogant if you think that you can get away with saying America because you think that everyone in the World will immediately and by necessity think of one specific country within that continent, ignoring the rest.
You are showing your imperialist attitudes there. Your use of 'America' instead of 'USA' gives the implication that the USA is America and America is the USA, thereby implicitly belittling and relegating the other countries that are there.

Oh, good way to ignore my post too, btw. Focus on something totally minor and non-specific to the post. Well done.

I'm sorry, but you are pointing a finger? Take a look around these forums....just look at this thread. Although everyone knows that there are 3 American continents, and that our country's name is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not USA, which, FYI, is an abbreviation (look it up), America is an often used generalization by people all over the world when referring to our country. To claim that we citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by referring to ourselves as Americans is belittling and relegating other countries is obviously false and merely a crude slam.

The 'motivation' of this thread was to offer my own opinions about why so many on here keep up this constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism. I so state right in the first post. If someone disagrees with my reasons and they present logic, reasoning and facts to back up their allegations, I give their post as much consideration as I give those who agree with me. If they have only their opinion to offer, it simply offsets my own and the two cancel each other out.

I'm not sure what you would have me do. Not respond to posts to which I would like to respond? Change my opinions based on nothing other than differing opinions from other posters? Simply shut the hell up and say nothing?


Can you see why others might doubt this when you've barely responded to anybodies posts in this thread and there have been some quite sound reasons for why some people seem (to you) to attack America and yet most of your answers have been one line dismissals without ever acknowledging that they might have a point.

I'm sorry, but you are pointing a finger? Take a look around these forums....just look at this thread. Although everyone knows that there are 3 American continents, and that our country's name is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not USA, which, FYI, is an abbreviation (look it up), America is an often used generalization by people all over the world when referring to our country. To claim that we citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by referring to ourselves as Americans is belittling and relegating other countries is obviously false and merely a crude slam.


Run that by me again, how many American continents are there?

Where did you get the third one from or have you been hiding it all along?

Run that by me again, how many American continents are there?

Where did you get the third one from or have you been hiding it all along?
Um ... I suspect she's referring to North, Central and South America. That's three, at least in my numerology.

Can you see why others might doubt this when you've barely responded to anybodies posts in this thread and there have been some quite sound reasons for why some people seem (to you) to attack America and yet most of your answers have been one line dismissals without ever acknowledging that they might have a point.
As of now, there are 49 pages and 734 posts to this thread. I have responded to all of the posts to which I was able to respond. If that doesn't meet with your expectations, I apologize.

Umm. Tea is good :) We had sun today and 7 degrees celsius. No wind though. The spring is just around the corner.

Well. Seriously every country has a reason to hate their neighbours if you look in the history. That doesn't make us want to bomb eachother to the ground. History is history, but it should not be forgotten. Here is the problem with the US people or government, if there is something you don't like you push it under the carpet for noone to see.

For example nuclear polution in Greenland (well I am from Denmark and Greenland is a part of Denmark (on even terms) so I take it from a Danish point of view.). I guess there aren't many american citizens that know about that because their government wouldn't clean it up and wouldn't even give an official apoligy. This is why there are some Danish USA "haters". Have many americans ever wondered how they got so many pist of european brothers?
We do not envy americans for we know from history Empires will rise and fall. Well since USA is a big Empire it could might as well join the club of the fallen empires.
For example:
Athens overestimated itself in Greece. (Got beaten by Sparta)
Rome got beaten by the Germanic and Northern tribes
Napoleon (France) fell to England.
Germany fell to the allies.

All these Empires also did something good (maybe a little hard to see for the last one). USA also does something good in the world. The Iraqi war was a good thing and the Aghanistan war, but remember who gave the Taleban the weapons? And funded Saddams takeover in Iraq. Well everybody makes mistakes so it isn't a bad idea to correct them :D . Democracy is a slow process, but it is the best way to avoid really big problems.
Denmark participated in both the Afghanistan and the Iraqi war. So we support the US work in the middle east. We didn't go to war to find weapons of mass destruction like the US, but actually to put down Saddam.

So how many Soldiers did Denmark loose after the Iraqi war at the peace keeping process?
Well the exact number is 0. So why is that? Well mainly because they don't operate in such a hostile part of Iraq many would say. But the fact is that in a peacekeeping process you should use to much authority at the local people. Talk with them and make friends with them, then they are more likely to tell you, who the bad guys are. Don't opress them then you would make it a hostile area. We don't need to pray for our soldiers. We know they do a good job. It's when you fuck up you get killed. Maybe the US could learn a little bit from the US countries sometimes. We all make stupid things sometimes. Denmark also has a bad foreign politic, but we are not a big country, so no-one will notice. :P
Learn a little bit from a rather small country and you wouldn't have so many enemies. (It was 200 years ago Denmark participated in an offensive war and it would probably be some 200 years before the next). The aggressors are always the most hated. Here are some tips:
Weapons isn't equal to power. (If we had Nuclear weapons would we tell you?)
A united front is better than a "We do what we want to attitude".
Solution to hunger and hate is not war. War only creates more hate and hunger.
It is not the USA's job to make peace in the world (well that would be an impossible assignment). It is the world's job to ensure peace. So joint effort is better.

The USA is by the way that country that uses the most money on military in the world. It is also that country that spends the least on aid (per citizen). That isn't a good face to have when you want sympathy?
Isn't a little strange that USA is against religous extremists, when their president was elected by Christian religous extremists? (it seems like that for us anyway).

There aren't many US "haters", but there are US sceptics. So it is going to be hard job for the American president to build back the trust in US many that european countries had, but if he behave we might want to shake hands again ;) It could be funny to see a president that actually lived up to his responsibility and not run around like a small kid with some big toys. So we could put down the myth that Americans are:
1. Fat
2. Selfish
3. Stupid

Just a little question:
Well I don't know about other countries, but we don't have a medal for getting shot (like the purple heart). In Denmark if somebody got such a medal they failed their fellow soldiers. It just sounds so strange to hear the words. I got a "Purple heart" = I got a medal for getting shot/wounded in combat. Since war is about killing and wounding people it is strange to actually have a medal to get wounded/shot.
(Maybe it is because we operate with many special units that kills and disappears into nowhere. And the fact that soldiers (french, german and english). Put up their leg to get shot in the foot so they could get send home from the trenches in first world war (Denmark was neutral).).
Could anybody answer me why it is honourable to get a purple heart?
(for me it makes no sense at all)

Although I'm an American I don't feel very much pride in saying that. No one country is perfect. America is just way more public about it's problems. If Bush was to replace about half of his cabinet then that would solve a lot of problems.

Central America is not a continent by itself...

Take a look at this (http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/v/218/t7con.html)schools educational website if you want some help with your geography.

Just in case you can't be bothered I'll list the seven continents:

1 Africa
2 Antarctica
3 Asia
4 Australia
5 Europe
6 NorthAmerica
7 South America

This despite the fact that America has never kept territory from any of the nations she defeated, other than a few small islands for naval and airforce bases, which were used to defend other nations.

Didn't america take over a chunk of mexico?

I'm not terribly up on american history or anything, it's not a required course here, but I thought a bunch of the southern states once belonged to mexico?

These are some of the reasons I see for anti-Americansim. This thread is not suppose to be flame-bait, but rather just the perspective of one American on this issue. Please at least try to present your arguments in a calm, logical, reasoned manner, rather than simply saying something along the lines of "America sucks!"
This i find funny: "I'm not meaning to flame anyone, but everyone who bashes america is just jelous that our country rocks and their sucks." lol.

Run that by me again, how many American continents are there?

Where did you get the third one from or have you been hiding it all along?

I assume you are aware of North America and South America. I guess you didn't realize Mexico is in Central America. Get a map.

I assume you are aware of North America and South America. I guess you didn't realize Mexico is in Central America. Get a map.
psst...

mexico is part of north america. as is the rest of central america.

Central America is not a continent by itself...

Take a look at this (http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/v/218/t7con.html)schools educational website if you want some help with your geography.

Just in case you can't be bothered I'll list the seven continents:

1 Africa
2 Antarctica
3 Asia
4 Australia
5 Europe
6 NorthAmerica
7 South America
As informative as that website is about how many continents there are...

Most of the people on this continent have come from Europe. In Canada, people
have come from England and France. In the United States, people have come
from all over Europe. Because so many different people from different countries have come to the United States to live, it is sometimes called the "MELTING POT".
Canada is at least as diverse as the united states, I don't know what the hell this person was smoking. I also love how in the animals section, it's animals that live mostly in the united states or are better known for living in the united states, and how there is no mention of popular sports in central america...

I'm sorry, but you are pointing a finger? Take a look around these forums....just look at this thread. Although everyone knows that there are 3 American continents, and that our country's name is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not USA, which, FYI, is an abbreviation (look it up), America is an often used generalization by people all over the world when referring to our country. To claim that we citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by referring to ourselves as Americans is belittling and relegating other countries is obviously false and merely a crude slam.

What's this person got against abbreviations?

You will NEVER make them believe that :D
What if I up the size to 7? ;)

Well, I can't speak for "them," but speaking for just me, I suspect you may be right. If you can give an effective rationale for why that isn't true, I may change my views on that one reason.
Why should I have to give rationale? Is it not enough for you to just tell you that I am not jealous?

Anyway. I'm not jealous because my living standard is just as high as yours. I also have a political system that is preferable to yours. I can get a job that will actually give me a decent amount of holidays every year. I do not live in a militaristic culture. That's why I'm not jealous. There's simply nothing to be jealous of.

As informative as that website is about how many continents there are...

Canada is at least as diverse as the united states, I don't know what the hell this person was smoking. I also love how in the animals section, it's animals that live mostly in the united states or are better known for living in the united states, and how there is no mention of popular sports in central america...


I know it's not the best of educational websites, but I'm trying wherever possible to use American links in this thread, now, so as to not be accused of anti-americanism (whatever the hell that is).

Is it my fault that their education websites are substandard? ;)

I think a lot of the "America-bashing" that happens on NS is a result of misunderstanding. After all, the United States is a huge entity, with a massive government, the largest armed forces in the world, the largest economy, and a huge population. All of that adds up to a lot of activity. Sometimes an American, acting as part of a governmental entity, an economic entity, or on his or her own, commits an action, or even advances an idea, that others disagree with. Someone will post something about how they disagree with that action or idea. In response, someone will accuse them of 'hating America.' Or the person who disagrees with the American's action or idea will confuse that American with all of America and post something about how they hate Americans. In the end it is all misunderstanding. Unfortunately that misunderstanding is also perpetuated by Americans who think that their opinion represents all American opinion, which is the case with the post that started this thread. It is a blatant falsity to say that the Bush administration's response to 9/11 represented general American opinion. The truth is that there was never more than 66% of the population in favor of going to war in response to 9/11. Unfortunately all Americans will never be represented by any one person or institution. We have to do our best to represent all Americans as accurately as possible. Unfortunately our obviously unrepresentative system of governance makes no effort to accomplish this, which should come as no surprise as the American system of government was not designed to represent the people, but instead to represent the interests of the wealthiest members of society. That is an historical fact. It is also unfortunate that people such as the one who started this thread choose to perpetuate a harmful myth that Americans will ever be represented by one political platform.

I'm American and I never feel violated when I visit foreign boards. I find most Europeans to be very friendly and down-to-earth, more so than Americans.

Israel has been in non-compliance of many UN Resolutions and you should note that the US vetoed many more Resolutions against Israel.

But you can't seem to name even ONE right now, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

I don't understand why Americans can't come to terms with the fact that some people don't believe in the same stuff that they believe in. Infact a lot of people don't agree with Americans. Just accept it. Accusing everyone who doesn't like your country as being 'jelous' just furthur exemplafys your enourmous arogants.

pardon the spelling errors

Maybe now that you have exposed the US part in the Oil For Food Scandal, Urantia II and others might be inclined to stop the finger pointing?

You have exposed their "likely" compliance in the "Oil for Food Program" scandals, since the accusations are just that and that several of these "companies" actually were taking part in the Program doesn't preclude them from having the "vouchers"...

And that we "knew" that a couple of Countries were subverting the "Law" and we decided to do nothing about it. And yes, that is wrong and something should be done about it.

Now isn't it funny that I am able to admit when I have been shown something to perhaps be true that I am able to admit it, yet not one of you has yet to admit ANY of what we have been SHOWING you!?!?

And it is YOU that are accusing US of being closed minded and not consider what anyone else has to say, so tell me how that works again?

Just another example of our willingness to look at BOTH sides of the discussion and ACTUALLY WEIGH the MERITS of BOTH ARGUMENTS...

Not that most of you Liberals would understand how to do such a thing.

Regards,
Gaar